Tag:Inspection

1
Advantacare Health Partners, LP v. Access IV, 2005 WL 1398641 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2005) (Unpublished)
2
McCarthy v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., 2005 WL 6157347 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 9, 2005)
3
Inventory Locator Serv., LLC v. PartsBase, Inc., 2005 WL 6062855 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 19, 2005)
4
Bd. of Managers of Atrium Condo. v. West 79th St. Corp., 792 N.Y.S.2d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
5
Laurin v. Pokoik, 2004 WL 2724767 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2004)
6
Lexis-Nexis v. Beer, 41 F. Supp. 2d 950 (D. Minn. 1999)
7
Advantacare Health Partners, LP v. Access IV, 2004 WL 1837997 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2004)
8
McCurdy Group, LLC v. Am. Biomedical Group, Inc., 9 Fed. Appx. 822, 2001 WL 536974 (10th Cir. May 21, 2001)
9
Anderson v. Crossroads Capital Partners, LLC, 2004 WL 256512 (D. Minn. Feb. 10, 2004)
10
Med. Billing Consultants, Inc. v. Intelligent Med. Objects, Inc., 2003 WL 1809465 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 4, 2003)

Advantacare Health Partners, LP v. Access IV, 2005 WL 1398641 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2005) (Unpublished)

Key Insight: Court denied individual defendant’s motion for reconsideration of default judgment entered against her and other defendants for continued destruction of evidence and continued possession of plaintiff’s proprietary files; although there was no evidence that individual defendant personally engaged in wrongful acts, she was not insulated by simply leaving compliance with court orders to other defendant; further, individual had numerous opportunities to disavow knowledge of misconduct or detail what efforts she personally took to comply with court orders but never did so

Nature of Case: Misapproriation of trade secrets and related torts

Electronic Data Involved: Proprietary information in electronic form

McCarthy v. Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp., 2005 WL 6157347 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. June 9, 2005)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff?s affidavit in support of motion stated that emails were used routinely in the course of defendants’ business, described defendants? backup process, and asserted that he was able to run a search on Lotus Notes folders he maintained, resulting in production by him to defendants of 5,000 emails, and defendants provided little information except to state that backup tapes were routinely overwritten and that deleted emails could not be recovered, court noted that defendants? efforts to preserve evidence or lack thereof could be an issue in the case and allowed plaintiff to designate IT expert to inspect hard drives and backup media identified in discovery demands; court further directed defendants to provide access, subject to inspection protocol and confidentiality stipulation to be submitted by parties for court approval

Nature of Case: Disability discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, hard drives

Laurin v. Pokoik, 2004 WL 2724767 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2004)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought “any document which would evidence the true date when [a particular] entry was actually entered into the computer system,” court ruled that if plaintiff wishes to retain a forensic computer expert at her own expense, she may seek an order that defendant permit the expert to inspect the computer system

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Date of particular data entry in computer system

Lexis-Nexis v. Beer, 41 F. Supp. 2d 950 (D. Minn. 1999)

Key Insight: Court granted motion for monetary sanctions against defendant for violating TRO by failing to return proprietary information and data to plaintiff, but reserved judgment on amount of award pending further proceedings

Nature of Case: Employer sued former employee for misappropriation of trade secrets and related torts

Electronic Data Involved: Database containing sales and customer information, email, laptop, zip disk

Advantacare Health Partners, LP v. Access IV, 2004 WL 1837997 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2004)

Key Insight: Court denied motion for default judgment but granted motion for an adverse inference instruction and $20,000 in monetary sanctions where, in advance of court-ordered inspection, defendants deleted from their computers numerous electronic files which had been copied from former employer’s computer systems prior to their resignations, and, after the inspection, defendants failed to comply with court’s order that they delete all of plaintiffs’ files from their computers

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and related torts

Electronic Data Involved: Proprietary information in electronic form

McCurdy Group, LLC v. Am. Biomedical Group, Inc., 9 Fed. Appx. 822, 2001 WL 536974 (10th Cir. May 21, 2001)

Key Insight: Defendant’s skepticism that plaintiff had not produced copies of all responsive documents did not entitle defendant to conduct physical inspection of plaintiff’s hard drives

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and quantum meruit claim

Electronic Data Involved: Computer and disc drives

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

Med. Billing Consultants, Inc. v. Intelligent Med. Objects, Inc., 2003 WL 1809465 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 4, 2003)

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel defendants to allow experts to perform physical inspection of their computer equipment and files, since full disclosure of email had been provided by defendants and inspection was likely to be unduly burdensome

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Defendant’s computer equipment and files

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