In last week’s column, I reviewed Mintel International Group Ltd. v. Neergheen, No. 08-CV-3939 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 3, 2009), where Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez rejected a plaintiff’s efforts to secure a court order that would allow it to search the computers of a defendant’s new employer.
In that case, Valdez refused to grant plaintiff’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 to be allowed to make forensic images of the computers of a third party. The third party, Datamonitor, was the new employer of Meesham Neergheen, a former employee of Mintel International Group. Mintel International wanted to search for files which defendant Neergheen may have taken to Datamonitor, which was a direct competitor of Mintel International.
This content has been archived.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]
