11 results for 'cat:"Sanctions" AND cat:"Trade Secrets"'.
J. Gorenstein partially grants Web MD's motion for reconsideration of this court's prior order in a discovery dispute in this trade secrets case. Web MD is severely prejudiced by the plaintiff's failure to preserve data kept in a Salesforce database, resulting in Web MD being unable to test its claims. Therefore, all evidence related to the alleged misappropriation of data from this database must be excluded.
Court: USDC Southern District of New York, Judge: Gorenstein, Filed On: May 22, 2024, Case #: 1:20cv53, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: sanctions, trade Secrets, Discovery
J. Jackson grants a request by a Texas-based electrical contractor, finding its Louisiana competitor in civil contempt of a nearly two-year-old court order barring its use of allegedly stolen trade secrets obtained from the litigant’s former employees. The competitor claims it was “blindsided” by its employee’s deposition testimony that he used tools and programs from his ex-employers to build materials for his new bosses. The competitor “may not rely on its supposed ignorance” of its employees' activities to avoid a finding of contempt. The competitor must immediately cease using all replicas of the litigant-contractor's protected information.
Court: USDC Middle District of Louisiana, Judge: Jackson, Filed On: April 12, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv267, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: Employment, sanctions, trade Secrets
J. Snyder grants L'Oreal's motion for terminating sanctions in a patent dispute over a hair-coloring dispensing system. The court found that the accused products did not infringe upon the patent, and that the patent holder did not allege a trade secret and that the information in the patent could not be protected as a trade secret. L'Oreal asserts that documents presented in the first amended complaint were inauthentic. A forensic expert determined that some documents had been edited after litigation began. Evidence shows that the patent holder "acted willfully, in bad faith, and with fault by repeatedly fabricating, destroying, and withholding important evidence."
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Snyder, Filed On: March 29, 2024, Case #: 2:18cv364, NOS: Patent - Property Rights, Categories: Patent, sanctions, trade Secrets
J. Frimpong grants in part a motion for monetary sanctions in the amount of $149,787 against an importer and its counsel for causing a mistrial in a trade secrets suit against former employees who formed a competitive business. The importer's counsel asked one of the former employees a question concerning a settlement communication during the trial, which "fairly well and truly tainted" the jury. The judge granted the motion for mistrial, recused himself, and the case was transferred to another judge. The judge properly exercised his discretion in granting a mistrial. He held a hearing with the parties and considered their arguments prior to granting the mistrial.
Court: USDC Central District of California, Judge: Frimpong, Filed On: February 6, 2024, Case #: 2:22cv2120, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: sanctions, trade Secrets
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. Carr grants the assisted living facility's motion for sanctions against the former employee and her new employer, ruling the employee's admission she knew of a litigation hold shortly after accepting the job offer from the competitor contradicts her claim she was unaware she could not delete thousands of text messages and is sufficient to prove spoliation of evidence. Therefore, the jury in any eventual trial will be instructed to infer the deleted messages were efforts by the competitor to solicit former employees to violate restrictive covenants.
Court: USDC Northern District of Ohio, Judge: Carr, Filed On: January 25, 2024, Case #: 3:22cv606, NOS: Other Contract - Contract, Categories: Jury, sanctions, trade Secrets
J. Ho grants, in part, a realty company's motion for fee shifting as a sanction against an attorney in a trade secrets case. The attorney relied on assumptions, rather than facts, regarding the existence of requested records when he refused to comply with certain discovery orders.
Court: USDC Southern District of Texas, Judge: Ho, Filed On: January 22, 2024, Case #: 4:22cv2847, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: sanctions, trade Secrets, Discovery
J. Alonso alternatingly grants and denies multiple parties’ motions for summary judgment in this dispute over the plaintiff trucking company’s trade secrets. The company uses the password-protected “Sylectus” software program to make bookings and maintain customer relations. The company claims several of its employees, led by a former manager, used confidential data in the Sylectus system to jump start their own competing freight company and pull in almost $3.5 million in ill-gotten revenue. The company brought multiple trade secret misappropriation, fraud, breach of loyalty and conspiracy charges against the former employees and the new competitor, but the court found that only the breach of loyalty count against the former manager has been sufficiently alleged. The court dismisses all other defendants from the suit, while also granting the manager’s motion to bar certain expert testimony, denying the company’s motion to seal certain documents, and placing sanctions on the manager for deleting certain Dropbox files that can no longer be used as evidence in the company’s case.
Court: USDC Northern District of Illinois, Judge: Alonso, Filed On: January 18, 2024, Case #: 1:21cv2903, NOS: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) - Property Rights, Categories: Employment, sanctions, trade Secrets
J. Bowman grants, in part, the cleaning company's motion for sanctions, ruling the former employee's repeated refusals to comply with court orders regarding discovery has prejudiced the company and prevented it from preparing any type of defense to counterclaims filed by the employee. Therefore, the employee is ordered to appear at a telephonic conference on November 13 or face additional sanctions, while the company will also be awarded more than $10,000 in attorney fees.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Bowman, Filed On: October 26, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv12, NOS: Trademark - Property Rights, Categories: sanctions, trade Secrets, Attorney Fees
J. Sitarski denies a company’s motion for Rule 11 Sanctions. The company alleges a former employee left the company, went to work for a competitor, and continued to access its systems after his employment ceased. The company has not presented adequate evidence to support its claims, and not enough to merit sanctions against the former employee.
Court: USDC Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Judge: Sitarski, Filed On: June 27, 2023, Case #: 5:22cv4557, NOS: Employment - Civil Rights, Categories: Employment, sanctions, trade Secrets