Tag:Data Preservation

1
Superior Consultant Co. v. Bailey, 2000 WL 1279161 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 22, 2000)
2
GE Harris Ry. Elecs., LLC v. Westinghouse Air Brake Co., 2004 WL 5702740 (D. Del. Mar. 29, 2004)
3
McCabe v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 221 F.R.D. 423 (D.N.J. 2004)

Superior Consultant Co. v. Bailey, 2000 WL 1279161 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 22, 2000)

Key Insight: Reference to previously entered TRO, ordering, among other things, that the parties neither destroy, alter, modify nor conceal any relevant data, including data stored on computer media, that defendants create and thereafter produce to defense counsel a backup file of defendant Bailey’s laptop computer, and a backup file of any personal computer hard-drive to which defendant Bailey has had access at any time, and that defendants produce a redacted copy of these hard-drive backup files to plaintiff’s counsel within three days after entry of the TRO; subsequent preliminary injunction included similar provisions

Nature of Case: Employer sued former employee for breach of employment contract, tortious interference, misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Databases containing sales and customer information

GE Harris Ry. Elecs., LLC v. Westinghouse Air Brake Co., 2004 WL 5702740 (D. Del. Mar. 29, 2004)

Key Insight: Court declined to impose terminating sanctions and instead ordered an adverse inference sanction against defendant for employee?s intentional spoliation of electronic evidence where the destruction was motivated by an intent to eliminate incriminating evidence but where the prejudice was minimal in light of plaintiff?s ability to obtain copies of the deleted evidence by other means

Nature of Case: Patent infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails

McCabe v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 221 F.R.D. 423 (D.N.J. 2004)

Key Insight: Magistrate recommended that non-parties’ motion for attorneys’ fees and other costs incurred in appearing for depositions and responding to subpoenas be denied, since non-parties failed to object to subpoenas or condition compliance on reimbursement, and an award of $58,000, without notice to plaintiffs, would be tantamount to severe prejudice

Electronic Data Involved: Email and hard copy documents

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