Catagory:Case Summaries

Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., 591 F. Supp. 2d 1038 (N.D. Cal. 2006)

In this opinion, the court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law on Hynix’s unclean hands defense to Rambus’ patent infringement claims. The essential issues of the trial were: (1) whether Rambus adopted a document retention plan in order to destroy documents in advance of a planned litigation campaign against DRAM manufacturers, and (2) whether in light of any such conduct, the court should dismiss Rambus’ patent claims against Hynix as a sanction for unclean hands. Read More

McDowell v. Gov’t of Dist. of Columbia, 233 F.R.D. 192 (D.D.C. 2006)

As a result of the difficulties faced by plaintiff in trying to obtain discovery in this case, plaintiff sought an order granting summary judgment against the District as to the “practice of allowing in the field strip searches or searches that involve viewing or touching inside the clothes searches.” Plaintiff also sought costs and attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of defendants’ failure to produce the requested discovery materials, which included a spreadsheet and certain arrest forms referred to as “PD 163s.” Read More

Treppel v. Biovail Corp., 2006 WL 278170 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2006)

In this case, plaintiff alleged that Biovail Corp., its general counsel and certain others engaged in a “smear campaign” that destroyed plaintiff’s career as a securities analyst. He asserted claims of defamation, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and civil conspiracy. Plaintiff moved for an order compelling defendants to: (a) preserve all potentially discoverable data, whether maintained in electronic or paper form; (b) answer a range of questions concerning their electronic data management practices; and (c) produce all accessible data and documents responsive to his First Request for Production of Documents. Magistrate Judge James C. Francis denied the motion as to the preservation order, but granted the other relief requested. Read More

E & J Gallo Winery v. Encana Energy Servs., Inc., 2005 WL 3709885 (E.D. Cal. July 5, 2005)

In this action alleging natural gas price fixing, plaintiff sought severe sanctions against certain defendants and their counsel for taking actions which plaintiff claimed resulted in the cancellation of a third-party witness deposition set by plaintiff. The magistrate ultimately rejected the heavy sanctions requested by Gallo, finding that a further monetary sanction against the defendants’ law firm was in order. It imposed a $102,078.97 sanction against Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, with $92,078.97 to be paid to Gallo to defray its fees and expenses to pursue the sanctions motion, and $10,000 to be paid to the court. Read More

Gilliam v. Addicts Rehab. Ctr. Fund, Inc., 2006 WL 228874 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2006)

In this class action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, defendants identified 148 compact discs containing information responsive to plaintiffs’ requests for certain records. The discs contained payroll and timekeeping records for approximately 150 employees, and also contained personal information, including health, credit, and family information about those employees. Read More

In re Universal Serv. Fund Tel. Billing Practices Litig., 232 F.R.D. 669 (D. Kan. 2005)

In this multidistrict litigation consisting of numerous putative class actions against AT&T Corporation and Sprint Communications Company, plaintiffs moved to compel AT&T to produce documents that had been withheld on a claim of attorney/client privilege. The motion was referred to a magistrate judge, who ordered AT&T to produce copies of the 35 documents at issue for an in camera review, and provide more information with regard to those persons sending and receiving, including receipt of courtesy copies, the emails listed on the privilege log. Read More

Rozell v. Ross-Holst, 2006 WL 163143 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 20, 2006)

Plaintiff asserted claims of sexual harassment, retaliation, violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and computer trespassing against her former employer and supervisor. Among other things, plaintiff alleged that her supervisor “hacked” into her electronic mail account and forwarded to himself approximately 400 of her emails. Read More

Channel Components, Inc. v. Am. II Electronics, Inc., 915 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

In this case alleging tortious interference and related claims against two former employees, the plaintiff sought intervention by the court several times in order to secure defendants’ compliance with their discovery obligations. Plaintiff filed successive motions for contempt and sanctions alleging that defendants had not complied with the discovery requests or the orders of the court compelling discovery. Read More

Martin v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 2006 WL 148991 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 19, 2006)

Plaintiff, a trial lawyer, sued his insurer for disability benefits. The insurer propounded discovery about income the plaintiff may have generated while disabled, including income derived from practicing law. Suspecting that additional documents existed which had not been produced, defense counsel met and conferred on the subject, and filed several motions to compel a more complete production. For each motion, plaintiff essentially maintained he had complied with his discovery obligations. Undeterred, the defendant subpoenaed plaintiff’s bookkeeper and his fiance, each of whom produced documents that had not been produced by plaintiff. Included within these items were travel expenses and proof of income derived from practicing law. All of the documents were electronically stored in the computers of plaintiff’s bookkeeper and his fiance. Read More

Powerhouse Marks, L.L.C. v. Chi Hsin Impex, Inc., 2006 WL 83477 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 12, 2006)

In this trademark infringement case, plaintiffs sought from defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. information relating to its purchases and sales of certain exercise equipment (Interrogatories 1 and 2). In response, Wal-Mart asserted general objections and referred plaintiffs to 1771 pages of Bates stamped documents which it contended sufficiently responded to the interrogatories. Claiming that the database printouts were indecipherable and did not adequately answer their interrogatories, plaintiffs moved to compel. Read More