Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Google Inc. v. Am. Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc., 2006 WL 3290402 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2006)
2
Christopher v. Tulsa Ambassador Hotel, L.L.C., 2006 WL 3626761 (N.D. Okla. Dec. 11, 2006)
3
United States ex rel. Parikh v. Premera Blue Cross, 2006 WL 2927700 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 11, 2006)
4
MicroBrightField, Inc. v. Boehringer, 2006 WL 851825 (D. Vt. Mar. 30, 2006)
5
B & G Crane Serv., L.L.C. v. Duvic, 2006 WL 1194775 (La. Ct. App. May 5, 2006)
6
Delta Fin. Corp. v. Morrison, 819 N.Y.S.2d 908 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2006)
7
Phoenix Four, Inc. v. Strategic Res. Corp., 2006 WL 2135798 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2006)
8
Jordan v. Dillards, Inc., 2006 WL 2873472 (D. Kan. Oct. 5, 2006)
9
Goldman v. Healthcare Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 2006 WL 3589065 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 8, 2006)
10
PML N. Am., LLC v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 2006 WL 3759914 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 20, 2006)

Google Inc. v. Am. Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc., 2006 WL 3290402 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2006)

Key Insight: Where defendant had not previously understood that its obligation to search for responsive documents extended to email accounts, but counsel had taken steps to rectify the situation, court denied plaintiff?s demand that defendant be compelled to produce an affidavit describing its document search and collection processes, and instead ordered defendant to provide a verified statement signed by a responsible corporate official that defendant made a good faith search for responsive material and that all responsive, non-privileged documents were produced

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Christopher v. Tulsa Ambassador Hotel, L.L.C., 2006 WL 3626761 (N.D. Okla. Dec. 11, 2006)

Key Insight: Magistrate judge was within his discretion to order that original discs be produced for computer expert’s inspection and copying so that all parties could be satisfied as to the authenticity and integrity of the copies provided

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Computer discs onto which plaintiff had copied various files of defendant

United States ex rel. Parikh v. Premera Blue Cross, 2006 WL 2927700 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 11, 2006)

Key Insight: Court employed five-factor balancing test to determine that, under totality of circumstances, defendant?s inadvertent disclosure of privileged emails did not effect waiver; court granted defendant?s motion for return of the privileged documents

Nature of Case: Allegations of Medicare fraud and retaliatory discharge

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails on CD

MicroBrightField, Inc. v. Boehringer, 2006 WL 851825 (D. Vt. Mar. 30, 2006)

Key Insight: Court ordered: “The parties should also resolve MBF’s request for production of Boehringer’s computers and data storage devices. In the event the parties do not cooperate and resolve the discovery issues, the Court will hold a hearing and require attorneys to be present.”

Nature of Case: Former employer alleged copyright infringement, breach of contract, unauthorized access of its computer system, and misappropriation of trade secrets claims against former employee

Electronic Data Involved: Former employee’s computer and data storage devices

B & G Crane Serv., L.L.C. v. Duvic, 2006 WL 1194775 (La. Ct. App. May 5, 2006)

Key Insight: Even lacking direct evidence that defendants continued to possess plaintiff?s computer disks and information (which had been seized by the Attorney General in related criminal investigation), trial court erred in denying preliminary injunction given evidence of defendants? knowing and willing participation in criminal, unethical and unscrupulous acts against plaintiff and possibility that information could have been downloaded to other computers, or printed, or handwritten and kept anywhere; trial court’s credibility determination in favor of defendants was abuse of discretion under the circumstances

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: CDs and computer disks

Delta Fin. Corp. v. Morrison, 819 N.Y.S.2d 908 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2006)

Key Insight: Court ordered party to conduct additional searches of data restored from backup tapes, and to restore and search a sample of additional backup tapes, shifting all initial costs to the requesting party; court further directed producing party to prepare an affidavit detailing the number of responsive documents found and the costs and expenses associated with the processes, including but not limited to attorneys fees for privilege review, which would assist the court in determining whether a full search would be necessary and whether further cost-shifting was warranted

Nature of Case: Fraud and breach of contract claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email and non-email electronic documents restored from backup tapes

Phoenix Four, Inc. v. Strategic Res. Corp., 2006 WL 2135798 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2006)

Key Insight: In follow-up to earlier decision awarding sanctions for discovery failings (Phoenix Four, Inc. v. Strategic Res. Corp., 2006 WL 1409413 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2006)), court awarded Phoenix its attorney’s fees and costs associated with bringing the motion for sanctions in the amount of $45,162, to be paid equally by the SRC Defendants and their law firm; court further ruled that the SRC Defendants’ share ?may not be borne by their insurance carriers?

Nature of Case: Investment company sued former advisor for breach of fiduciary duty, common law fraud, and negligent misrepresentation

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drives and servers

Jordan v. Dillards, Inc., 2006 WL 2873472 (D. Kan. Oct. 5, 2006)

Key Insight: Defendant’s motion to compel production of plaintiff’s hard drive for inspection denied, since defendant “provided no justification for so broad or invasive a request” and there was no showing that the request was reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Plaintiff’s hard drive

Goldman v. Healthcare Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 2006 WL 3589065 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 8, 2006)

Key Insight: Court denied motion for sanctions based on spoliation of evidence, concluding that, although defendants may have been negligent in their deletion of lines of source code, the record did not support a finding of bad faith or prejudice

Nature of Case: Unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.