Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp., 223 F.R.D. 162 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)
2
First USA Bank, N.A. v. Paypal, Inc., 76 Fed.Appx. 935, 2003 WL 22071558 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 21, 2003)
3
Haynes v. Office of Attorney Gen., 298 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (D. Kan. 2003)
4
Kadant v. Seeley Machine, Inc., 244 F. Supp. 2d 19 (N.D.N.Y. 2003)
5
Lytle v. Ford Motor Co., 2003 WL 23855089 (Ind. Cir. Ct. Apr. 19, 2003) (Unpublished)
6
Nicholas v. Windham Int’l, Inc., 373 F.3d 537 (4th Cir. 2004)
7
SEC v. Beacon Hill Asset Mgmt. LLC, 231 F.R.D. 134 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)
8
Stricklen v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 32 F.3d 572 (Table, Text in WESTLAW), 1994 WL 390001 (9th Cir. 1994) (Unpublished)
9
United States v. IBM, 76 F.R.D. 97 (S.D.N.Y. 1977)
10
Williams v. DuPont, 119 F.R.D. 648 (W.D. Ky. 1987)

Convolve, Inc. v. Compaq Computer Corp., 223 F.R.D. 162 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)

Key Insight: Court rejected plaintiff’s request for direct access to Compaq’s hard drives, servers, and databases since plaintiff had failed to show widespread destruction or withholding of relevant information by Compaq; court further rejected plaintiff’s request for sanctions for failure to preserve certain evidence

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives, servers, databases, email and electronic data

First USA Bank, N.A. v. Paypal, Inc., 76 Fed.Appx. 935, 2003 WL 22071558 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 21, 2003)

Key Insight: Former CEO of defendant subpoenaed and ordered to appear for deposition and produce his laptop computer for forensic inspection pursuant to court’s approved search protocol; CEO’s appeal of the nonfinal interlocutory order was dismissed

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop

Haynes v. Office of Attorney Gen., 298 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (D. Kan. 2003)

Key Insight: Terminated employee obtained preliminary injunction preventing his former employer from accessing “private” files stored on his work computer or discussing “private” files that were accessed; employer further ordered to provide employee access to his private files to determine which ones he wanted copied; employee prohibited from deleting any information from work computer

Nature of Case: Former assistant attorney general sought damages and injunctive relief

Electronic Data Involved: Employee’s “private” information contained on work computer

Kadant v. Seeley Machine, Inc., 244 F. Supp. 2d 19 (N.D.N.Y. 2003)

Key Insight: Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction granted; defendants enjoined from destroying, erasing or altering any of its computer-stored information that concerns any of plaintiff’s claims against them

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Computer data

Lytle v. Ford Motor Co., 2003 WL 23855089 (Ind. Cir. Ct. Apr. 19, 2003) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s request “to go into Ford’s databases and look for any relevant information that might be there,” finding the request for production to be overbroad and unduly burdensome

Nature of Case: Product liability

Electronic Data Involved: Databases

Nicholas v. Windham Int’l, Inc., 373 F.3d 537 (4th Cir. 2004)

Key Insight: No abuse of discretion to deny enforcement of subpoena directed to plaintiffs’ nonparty company where defendants had already deposed plaintiffs and conceded that the company would have no additional information, plaintiffs would be designated Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses if discovery were allowed, and plaintiffs had already produced email from their business accounts and remained under a continuing obligation to supplement their earlier productions

Nature of Case: Ancillary proceeding to enforce subpoena

Electronic Data Involved: Email

SEC v. Beacon Hill Asset Mgmt. LLC, 231 F.R.D. 134 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)

Key Insight: Granting motion to compel contact list printed out from defendant’s contact management software program which was not timely included on defendant’s privilege log, court rejected “frivolous” argument that the contact list technically did not exist until it was printed: “For more than thirty years, Fed.R.Civ . P. 34(a) has included data stored on electronic media as being subject to a Rule 34 request. The fact that the data has not been printed out does not mean that the document does not exist. Indeed, if BH’s argument were meritorious, any party could avoid producing damaging documents through the simple expedient of storing them on electronic media and never printing them out.”

Nature of Case: SEC enforcement action

Electronic Data Involved: Email, spreadsheets and contact list

Stricklen v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 32 F.3d 572 (Table, Text in WESTLAW), 1994 WL 390001 (9th Cir. 1994) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Negative inference not warranted in NTSB board proceeding where computer tapes containing radar data were destroyed pursuant to FAA policy and without notice that pilot would raise issue of near-miss

Nature of Case: Petition for review of order of NTSB revoking pilot’s airline transport certificate

Electronic Data Involved: Tapes containing radar data

United States v. IBM, 76 F.R.D. 97 (S.D.N.Y. 1977)

Key Insight: Defendant required to produce computerized information; conduct of defendant and technical and complex nature of production warranted appointment of examiner pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 53 to report to the court what materials the defendant possesses and whether defendant produced such material

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Tapes, files, programs, reports, input and output files

Williams v. DuPont, 119 F.R.D. 648 (W.D. Ky. 1987)

Key Insight: Employer entitled to discover, at its own expense, copies of database on computer disk, code books and user manual created by EEOC’s expert from information produced by employer to allow for effective cross-examination of EEOC’s expert; in addition, employer to pay “fair portion of the fees and expenses incurred” in the past by EEOC for the expert’s work in encoding the requested data and formulating the database

Nature of Case: Consolidated Title VII action brought by individual and EEOC

Electronic Data Involved: Database created by EEOC’s expert from information produced by employer

Copyright © 2026, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.