Catagory:Case Summaries

1
Williams v. DuPont, 119 F.R.D. 648 (W.D. Ky. 1987)
2
Anderson v. Crossroads Capital Partners, LLC, 2004 WL 256512 (D. Minn. Feb. 10, 2004)
3
Century ML-Cable Corp. v. Carrillo, 43 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.P.R. 1998)
4
Crown-Life Ins. Co. v. Craig, 995 F.2d 1376 (7th Cir. 1993)
5
Fresenius Med. Care Holding Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 224 F.R.D. 644 (N.D. Cal. 2004)
6
In re Heritage Bond Litig., 223 F.R.D. 527 (C.D.Cal. 2004)
7
Kaufman v. Kinko’s, Inc., 2002 WL 32123851 (Del. Ch. Apr. 16, 2002) (Unpublished)
8
Marcin Eng’g, LLC v. Founders at Grizzly Ranch LLC, 219 F.R.D. 516 (D. Colo. 2003)
9
Nutrition Mgmt. v. Harborside Healthcare Corp., 2004 WL 887401 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 19, 2004)
10
Promega Corp. v. Applera Corp., 2002 WL 32340886 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 27, 2002)

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

Anderson v. Crossroads Capital Partners, LLC, 2004 WL 256512 (D. Minn. Feb. 10, 2004)

Key Insight: Plaintiff’s use of Cyberscrub data wiping software prior to court-ordered inspection of her computer and after agreeing on the record that she would not purge her hard drive or delete any documents, and her misrepresentations about age of hard drive, were not sufficiently egregious to warrant dismissal but did warrant an adverse inference instruction

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment and whistleblower claims by former employee

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive of plaintiff’s personal computer

Century ML-Cable Corp. v. Carrillo, 43 F. Supp. 2d 176 (D.P.R. 1998)

Key Insight: Default judgment entered against defendant and attorneys’ fees awarded to plaintiff, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, for defendant’s willful and intentional destruction of laptop presumably containing crucial evidence of defendant’s decoder key modification programs, sale records and customer lists

Nature of Case: Cable TV provider sued businessman for cable TV theft

Electronic Data Involved: Laptop

Crown-Life Ins. Co. v. Craig, 995 F.2d 1376 (7th Cir. 1993)

Key Insight: Insurer’s willful failure to comply with discovery orders and failure to produce database warranted evidentiary preclusion order amounting to entry of default judgment on agent’s counterclaim

Nature of Case: Insurer sued former general agent and agent counterclaimed for renewal commissions owed

Electronic Data Involved: Database containing raw data regarding policies sold by agents

Fresenius Med. Care Holding Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 224 F.R.D. 644 (N.D. Cal. 2004)

Key Insight: Magistrate found good cause to grant motion to compel where deponent identified source code in deposition which had not been produced; court ordered defendant to produce sworn declaration setting forth the specific efforts it made to locate responsive documents and either a certification that all documents have been produced, or an explanation of why the documents have not yet been produced

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

In re Heritage Bond Litig., 223 F.R.D. 527 (C.D.Cal. 2004)

Key Insight: Where defendants “deliberately and willfully” failed to produce responsive documents, court concluded that defendants had not substantially complied with its prior discovery order and awarded civil contempt sanctions against defendants in the amount of plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs

Nature of Case: Securities litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Documents on individual defendant’s personal computer

Kaufman v. Kinko’s, Inc., 2002 WL 32123851 (Del. Ch. Apr. 16, 2002) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Granting motion to compel defendant to produce email from backup tapes notwithstanding fact that restoration and retrieval costs may approach $100,000, court stated: “Upon installing a data storage system, it must be assumed that at some point in the future one may need to retrieve the information previously stored. That there may be deficiencies in the retrieval system (or inconvenience and cost associated with the actual retrieval) cannot be sufficient to defeat an otherwise good faith request to examine relevant information . . .”

Nature of Case: Valuation dispute arising as result of two merger agreements

Electronic Data Involved: Email stored on monthly backup tapes

Marcin Eng’g, LLC v. Founders at Grizzly Ranch LLC, 219 F.R.D. 516 (D. Colo. 2003)

Key Insight: Court denied defendant’s motion to extend expert discovery deadline for purposes of reviewing plaintiff’s experts computer data and computerized versions of preliminary and superseded versions of work, where material was produced in hard copy form months earlier and defendant had been dilatory in reviewing it

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and tort claims

Electronic Data Involved: Computerized data and superceded and preliminary drafts of expert

Nutrition Mgmt. v. Harborside Healthcare Corp., 2004 WL 887401 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 19, 2004)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion in limine to preclude testimony, which was based on speculation that email had been destroyed, since defendants produced sworn testimony that all relevant emails were produced, and legitimate reason for erasing some emails “was simply a function of cleaning the junk mail and other clutter from the computer software and disk storage space”

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and tort claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Promega Corp. v. Applera Corp., 2002 WL 32340886 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 27, 2002)

Key Insight: After plaintiffs objected to production of sales database because it was not organized to its liking, and defendants produced two further iterations in an attempt to respond to plaintiffs’ complaints, court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel production of “complete and accurate” database since court “was not convinced that defendants have failed to produce this information, even if it is not in the ideal format plaintiff desires”

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Sales database

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