Skip to content

Menu

Seyfarth Shaw LLP logo
HomeAboutAuthorsResources
Search
Close

Trading Secrets

A Law Blog on Trade Secrets, Non-Competes, and Computer Fraud

Home » California Federal Court Hammers Defendant For Destroying Evidence In Trade Secret Rift

California Federal Court Hammers Defendant For Destroying Evidence In Trade Secret Rift

By Guest Author for TradeSecretsLaw.com on March 2, 2012
Posted in Trade Secrets

By Vincent Smolczynski

A California federal district court judge recently issued a contempt citation and sanction award of $73,000 against a defendant in a trade secret misappropriation dispute for violating a court order to preserve evidence pending a hearing on a temporary restraining order. The case is Amron International Diving Supply, Inc. v. Hydrolinx Diving Communication, Inc., No. 11-CV-1890-H (S.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2012) (Dkt. No. 76). The court’s decision illustrates both the need for employers to conduct early forensic investigations of employees’ computer hardware when suspected of stealing trade secrets, and the hefty sanctions that can be imposed on defendants for the failure to preserve data stored on computer hardware.

Amron brought its trade secrets suit against defendants Saad Sadik and Hydrolinx, a newly-formed, competing company established by Sadik shortly after he was terminated by Amron in 2010. Based upon information Amron obtained indicating Sadik allegedly stole trade secrets, destroyed electronic data and then attempted to “cover [his] tracks,” Amron sought an ex parte temporary restraining order on August 23, 2011. The court scheduled a hearing and ordered the parties to preserve all evidence in its possession. At the hearing on August 31, 2011, the court granted the TRO, ordering defendants to produce all computers and media in their possession for forensic inspection and further ordering defendants to provide a written declaration attesting that, among other things, Sadik had not deleted any data since being served the order to preserve evidence.

Forensic analysis of the three produced computers established that days after being served the preservation order, defendant installed a Digital Document Shredder (“DDS”) software program on two computers, permanently destroying all data on both. Defendant had also purchased a brand new hard drive two days after the preservation order and installed the hard drive in a third computer sometime thereafter. Amron’s forensic inspection indicated Sadik manipulated the computer’s system clock to make the newly-installed hard drive appear to have been installed a month before the order. 

Amron sought sanctions against defendants for the use of the DDS software to wipe the computer, the destruction or hiding of another hard drive, and the manipulation of the computer system clock. Amron also filed a motion for contempt because of defendants’ refusal to produce additional computer hardware, including a portable hard drive, an additional computer, and several USB devices, which the court had ordered the defendant to produce. Though defendant offered “some excuses” to justify his actions, the court concluded monetary sanctions and contempt were appropriate for the defendants’ willful violations of the order to preserve evidence. The calculation of the $73,000 award was based upon the attorney’s fees associated with investigating the defendant’s violations, the attorney’s fees for bringing the motion for contempt, and the costs incurred to retain a computer forensic consulting firm.

The Amron decision serves as an important reminder of the extent to which parties to trade secret litigation may be liable for failing to preserve and protect electronic data. The case also illustrates the need for early forensic analysis to determine the extent of data preservation or lack thereof.

Tags: California, contempt, destruction of evidence, evidence eliminator, metadata, sanctions
Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Related Posts
karl-pawlowicz-QUHuwyNgSA0-unsplash
Federal Court Awards Company Only $1.00 in Damages in Misappropriation Case against Former Employee
February 23, 2023
california lawyers association
Robert Milligan to Present Webinar on How Trade Secrets Are Affected by the FTC’s Crackdown on Non-Competes
February 21, 2023
WIPR-Global-Trade-Secrets-Rankings
Seyfarth’s Trade Secrets Group Earns New International Ranking
February 8, 2023
FTC’s Crackdown on Non-Competes
Defend Trade Secrets Act
Federal Non-Compete Legislation Update
State Non-Compete Legislation Update
The Legal 500 – The Clients Guide to Law Firms

Stay Connected

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS

Topics

Archives

Recent Updates

  • NLRB to Release Memo Clarifying Impact of McLaren Macombs on Confidentiality and Non-Disparagement Restrictions
  • FTC Extends Public Comment Deadline on Proposed Rule Banning Employment Non-Competes Until April 19th
  • NLRB Targets Confidentiality and Non-Disparagement Provisions
  • Federal Court Awards Company Only $1.00 in Damages in Misappropriation Case against Former Employee
  • Computers on Wheels: One OEM Settles Claims While Another Scores a Win in Cases Involving Allegedly Botched OTA Updates
Seyfarth Shaw LLP logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Privacy PolicyAttorney Advertising

About Seyfarth's Trade Secrets, Computer Fraud & Non-Competes Team

Seyfarth’s Trade Secrets, Computer Fraud, & Non-Competes practice group of Seyfarth Shaw LLP offers services relating to corporate espionage, trade secrets litigation, non-compete agreements and other restrictive covenants, electronic information protection, audits, and various other protection policies, with offices nationwide.

Copyright © 2023, Seyfarth Shaw LLP. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo