Autotech Technologies LP v. Automationdirect.Com, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding where requesting party did not specify it wanted metadata as part of document production, responding party would not be compelled to supply it
• “ADC did not specify a form for the production of the document at issue, so Autotech had the option of producing it in the form in which it was ordinarily maintained, or in a reasonably usable form.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Aguilar v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Division of United States Department of Homeland Security
  S.D. New York· 2008-11-21· cited 45×
• Ford Motor Co. v. Edgewood Properties, Inc.
  D. New Jersey· 2009-05-19· cited 36×
• Chix Gear, LLC v. Princess Race Wear Corp.
  Trademark Trial and Appeal Board· 2019-11-26

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Ifc Credit Corporation v. Aliano Brothers General Contractors, Inc.
  Seventh Circuit· 2006-02-01· cited 100×
• Williams v. Sprint/United Management Co.
  D. Kansas· 2005-09-29· cited 36×
• Treppel v. Biovail Corp.
  S.D. New York· 2006-02-06· cited 33×
• Wyeth v. Impax Laboratories, Inc.
  D. Delaware· 2006-10-26· cited 18×
• D'Onofrio v. SFX Sports Group, Inc.
  District of Columbia· 2008-01-23· cited 11×
• Haka v. Lincoln County
  W.D. Wisconsin· 2007-08-29· cited 2×