Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Strasser v. Yalamanchi, 783 So.2d 1087 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
2
William T. Thompson Co. v. Gen. Nutrition Corp., Inc., 593 F. Supp. 1443 (C.D. Cal. 1984)
3
In re Nat’l Century Fin. Enters., Inc. Fin. Inv. Litig., 347 F. Supp. 2d 538 (S.D. Ohio 2004)
4
Lyondell-Citgo Refining, LP v. Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A., 2004 WL 1924810 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2004)
5
Vision Point of Sale, Inc. v. Haas, 2004 WL 5326424 (Ill. Cir. Ct. Sept. 27, 2004)
6
In re Amsted Ind., Inc. ERISA Litig., 2002 WL 31844956 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 18, 2002)
7
Catskill Devel., LLC v. Park Place Entm’t Corp., 286 F. Supp. 2d 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)
8
Cornell Research Found., Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Co., 223 F.R.D. 55 (N.D.N.Y. 2003)
9
Fischbach v. Trustees of Cal. State Univ., 2004 WL 179471 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2004) (Unpublished)
10
Hentsch Henchoz & Cie v. Gubbay, 97 P.3d 1283 (Utah 2004)

Strasser v. Yalamanchi, 783 So.2d 1087 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

Key Insight: Affirming jury award for plaintiff, where plaintiff had been permitted to add claim for negligent destruction of evidence based on defendant’s failure to preserve electronic records and computer hard drive, court found no error in allowing plaintiff to introduce at trial evidence of defendant’s discovery misconduct. Court further concluded that strong statements of disapproval of defendant’s discovery abuses did not require trial judge’s recusal.

Nature of Case: Breach of contract suit between former partners

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drive

William T. Thompson Co. v. Gen. Nutrition Corp., Inc., 593 F. Supp. 1443 (C.D. Cal. 1984)

Key Insight: Defendant’s discovery abuse and destruction of evidence warranted monetary sanctions and default judgment

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Sales and inventory data

In re Nat’l Century Fin. Enters., Inc. Fin. Inv. Litig., 347 F. Supp. 2d 538 (S.D. Ohio 2004)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs’ motion for leave to issue document preservation subpoena to Chapter 11 debtor, finding it was necessary to preserve the documents held by debtor since debtor would likely be dissolved and its documents would be destroyed, and such destruction would cause actual prejudice to plaintiffs in prosecuting their class action

Nature of Case: Securities class action by investors claiming that defendants had looted assets of Chapter 11 debtor

Electronic Data Involved: Information held in electronic form

Lyondell-Citgo Refining, LP v. Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A., 2004 WL 1924810 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 30, 2004)

Key Insight: Where defendants had taken steps to remedy alleged gaps in production by producing new spreadsheets and time remained to remedy any further deficiencies prior to the discovery cut-off, extreme sanction of default judgment was unwarranted

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Emails and spreadsheets of sales data

In re Amsted Ind., Inc. ERISA Litig., 2002 WL 31844956 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 18, 2002)

Key Insight: Plaintiffs’ motion to retrieve email granted; defendants required to re-search backup tapes using broader subject matter and time period, and to search email folders of any relevant individual in same manner

Nature of Case: ESOP plan participants sued employer and ESOP for breach of fiduciary duty and other wrongs

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other computerized data

Catskill Devel., LLC v. Park Place Entm’t Corp., 286 F. Supp. 2d 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)

Key Insight: After audiotapes which had not been produced by defendants came to light, court granted plaintiff’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) motion to vacate earlier summary judgment dismissing tortious interference with prospective business relations claim, and re-opened discovery for 30 days to allow expedited inquiry re discrete issues related to revived claim

Nature of Case: Tortious interference with contract and prospective business relations

Electronic Data Involved: Six audiotapes containing discussions between key players

Cornell Research Found., Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Co., 223 F.R.D. 55 (N.D.N.Y. 2003)

Key Insight: Where defendant resisted production of technical specifications in electronic form because material had already been produced at great expense in hard copy form, magistrate ruled that defendant must allow plaintiff’s expert to view material in electronic form at defendant’s facility during regular business hours under and such further terms and conditions as the parties agree

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Technical specifications

Fischbach v. Trustees of Cal. State Univ., 2004 WL 179471 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 31, 2004) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Email discovered and produced after court granted summary judgment for defense and notice of appeal was filed constituted new evidence; appellate court granted writ of coram vobis, reversed and directed the trial court to deny defendants’ motion for summary judgment without prejudice to their renewing the motion after plaintiff had opportunity to conduct further discovery regarding email

Nature of Case: Defamation and invasion of privacy

Electronic Data Involved: Belatedly produced email found on key player’s hard drive

Hentsch Henchoz & Cie v. Gubbay, 97 P.3d 1283 (Utah 2004)

Key Insight: Where defendant shipped all of its documents, records, and computer hard drives from Utah to Spain in defiance of trial court’s orders requiring defendant to comply with discovery requests, and trial court granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff, Supreme Court of Utah held that defendant?s appeal of the summary judgment ruling could be dismissed by appellate court based upon defendant?s contumacious conduct, but Supreme Court would first allow defendant an opportunity to bring itself into compliance with trial court?s orders within 30 days, including those orders requiring defendant to comply with discovery and to return all requested documents and evidence to Utah

Nature of Case: Investor sued financial services company for fraud, conspiracy, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drives

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