In Mintel International Group v. Neergheen, Civ. 08-c3939 (N.D.Ill. January 12, 2010) (“Mintel V“), the trial court issued what should be the final opinion in this ongoing litigation involving a departing, high-level employee.
In my August 2008 column, “Computer Issues When Key Personnel Defect,” I wrote about the matter at the TRO stage because it provided a checklist of the concerns that arise when a high-level employee leaves for a rival business. In my March 2009 column, “Building a Case for Rule 34 Relief,” I returned to Mintel to explore why Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez refused to order defendant’s new employer, Datamonitor, to make its computers available for searching by plaintiff’s experts (such “Rule 34″ searches are typically sought in departing employee litigation). In my May 2009 column, “‘A Loathsome, Offensive Brute’ of a Case,” I wrote about the court’s in limine ruling barring Mintel’s digital forensics expert from offering the opinion that USB thumb drives used by Meesham Neergheen had been wiped, that is, overwritten so that files on the drives could not be recovered or read.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
