Free Motion for Discovery - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 45.9 kB
Pages: 2
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 361 Words, 2,271 Characters
Page Size: 622 x 792 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/35857/42-2.pdf

Download Motion for Discovery - District Court of Delaware ( 45.9 kB)


Preview Motion for Discovery - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:05-cv-00879-SLR Document 42-2 Filed O4/27/2006 Paget of2
YN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
PIKE ELECTRIC CORPORATION &
PIKE ELECTRIC, INC.,
I’t¤*¤ti1°i`S» Civil Action no O5—879(SL.R)
vs.
M ICI<. DUBEA,
Defendant.
PROPOSED ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIF FS' MOTION FOR ORDER REJECTING
DEFENDANTS CLAIMS OF PRIVILEGE AND FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS DUE
TO SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE
AND NOW, on this ___ day of , .2006, upon review of Plaintiffs Pike
Electric Corporation and Pike Electric, Incfs (collectively "Pike") Motion for Order Rejecting
Defendant's Ciaiins of Privilege and for Discovery Sanctions Dne to Spoliation of Evidence, and
the supponting papers thereto:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Pike‘s Motion is GRANTED. The document
bates stamped PIKE O0Ol68.34, which was discarded by Dubea and obtained by Pike, is not
privileged and may be used for any puipose in this iitigation. Further, the following sanctions
are imposed on Dubea for iiis intentional destruction of patently relevant evidence:
(I) a finding of fact that, while still employed by Pike, Dubea planned with
others to tbnn a competing business in violation of the n0n~compete provision of his
Employment Agreement, and he intended to solicit Pike’s employees and customers in
furtherance of tliose efforts, including by using his knowledge regarding confidential Pike
intbrtnation;
str t -sri4-i

Case 1:05-cv-00879-SLR Document 42-2 Filed O4/27/2006 Page 2 of 2
(2) the burden of proof is shifted to Dubea to demonstrate that he in fact did
not breach the norncompete and non—disclosure provisions of his Employment Agreement, that
he in fact did not tortiously interfere with PiI and that he in tact did not rnisappropriate Pike trade secrets;
(3) the Court will apply an adverse spoliation inference that the evidence in
question is unfavorabie to Dubea;
(4) Pike shall have full access to Duhezfs computers so that Pike can conduct
a forensic analysis oftiiose machines; and
(5) Dubea shall compensate Pike in the amount of for fees and
expenses related to Dubea's destruction of evidence.
IT IS SO ORDERED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated:
2
ait:=i-samaat-1