Catagory:Case Summaries

1
MacNamara v. City of New York, 2006 WL 3298911 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2006)
2
Wendle Motors, Inc. v. Honkala, 2006 WL 3842146 (E.D. Wash. Dec. 29, 2006)
3
United States v. Worthington, ARMY 20040396, 2006 WL 6625258 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 18, 2006)
4
Waltzer v. Tradescape & Co., L.L.C., 819 N.Y.S.2d 38 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
5
Clever View Invs., Ltd. v. Oshatz, 2006 WL 305467 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2006)
6
MGE UPS Sys., Inc. v. Fakouri Elec. Eng’g, Inc., 2006 WL 686577 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 17, 2006)
7
Virgin Records Am., Inc. v. Does 1-35, 2006 WL 1028956 (D.D.C. Apr. 18, 2006)
8
Smith v. Clark, 2006 WL 1656485 (S.D. Ga. June 12, 2006)
9
z4 Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 2006 WL 2401099, *18 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2006)
10
Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, 2006 WL 2668843 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 15, 2006)

MacNamara v. City of New York, 2006 WL 3298911 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2006)

Key Insight: Court ordered production of handwritten worksheets used to compile database in light of demonstrated data entry errors that made accuracy of database printouts suspect; court also sustained objection to request for “all electronic data concerning RNC arrests” as impermissibly vague

Nature of Case: Litigation arising from arrests during 2004 Republican National Convention

Electronic Data Involved: Worksheets underlying database

Wendle Motors, Inc. v. Honkala, 2006 WL 3842146 (E.D. Wash. Dec. 29, 2006)

Key Insight: Court’s preliminary injunction included the following provision: “Pending resolution of this litigation, the Defendants shall not destroy, delete, or alter electronically stored file information.”

Nature of Case: Plaintiff claimed damage to its goodwill and business reputation based upon Internet postings regarding a particular vehicle

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

United States v. Worthington, ARMY 20040396, 2006 WL 6625258 (A. Ct. Crim. App. Sept. 18, 2006)

Key Insight: Emails properly authenticated by: name of alleged sender in email address (brian.worthing@us.army.mil), by testimony that recipient recognized return address and had previously received emails from the same, by testimony that the emails were consistent with the way appellant talked and by testimony that the emails were consistent with conversations and experiences of the alleged sender, e.g. the first email referred to defendant?s loss of his wallet in Kuwait, an event that was corroborated by a testifying witness

Nature of Case: Court martial

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Waltzer v. Tradescape & Co., L.L.C., 819 N.Y.S.2d 38 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Key Insight: Defendants’ failure to comply with six separate court orders to produce personal documents and electronic documents in the possession of two law firms that had formerly represented defendants, coupled with inadequate excuses for those defaults, warranted striking of their answer

Electronic Data Involved: CDs containing electronic documents

Clever View Invs., Ltd. v. Oshatz, 2006 WL 305467 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2006)

Key Insight: Magistrate ordered parties to share cost of $15,182 hard copy production (responding party to pay 60 percent and requesting party to pay 40 percent) where parties failed to seek assistance from the court prior to the copying, and where some of the reproduction was unnecessary since much of the information was available through other means, including on CD

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: CD containing purchase orders

MGE UPS Sys., Inc. v. Fakouri Elec. Eng’g, Inc., 2006 WL 686577 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 17, 2006)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and dismissal of opponent’s counterclaims and affirmative defenses based upon spoliation of evidence described as “intentionally modifying and deleting files from the laptops central to this case,” finding that evidence was “far from clear-cut” that defendants destroyed evidence sufficient to warrant a death-penalty sanction

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets and other claims

Electronic Data Involved: Files on laptops

Virgin Records Am., Inc. v. Does 1-35, 2006 WL 1028956 (D.D.C. Apr. 18, 2006)

Key Insight: Court denied without prejudice Doe defendant’s motion to quash subpoena issued to defendant’s ISP which argued that court lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant, since consideration of personal jurisdiction was premature and plaintiffs had made prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction over defendant

Nature of Case: Record companies brought infringement action arising out of internet file sharing of digital sound recordings

Electronic Data Involved: IP logs maintained by Internet Service Provider

z4 Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 2006 WL 2401099, *18 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 18, 2006)

Key Insight: On defendants’ motion for a new trial, court concluded that jury was properly instructed that it could make an adverse inference against Microsoft with regard to relevant email that was not produced until the day before trial

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, 2006 WL 2668843 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 15, 2006)

Key Insight: Court narrowed subpoena to defendant’s new employer, setting out “tiered discovery” process: plaintiff was to identify at least one project involving files allegedly removed from disputed laptop; new employer would then search for documents and/or files of the type described that were related to that project and produce them; if any of the produced documents and/or files were shown to be relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, then the parties would proceed to the ?second tier? of discovery and plaintiff could then request documents related to other projects; if no responsive documents could be found with respect to the first identified projects, however, plaintiff would be required to make a sufficient showing to the court as to why discovery should proceed further

Nature of Case: Design firm sued former vice president under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Electronic Data Involved: Proprietary business and technological data

Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.