Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05098/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05098-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TK POWER, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

TEXTRON, INC.,

Defendant.

___________________________________/

No. C-04-5098 EMC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON

NEWLY-DISCOVERED SPOLIATION

OF EVIDENCE

(Docket Nos. 170, 197)

The parties have filed briefs and supporting materials and presented argument in support of

and in opposition to Defendant’s motion. The Court ordered an evidentiary hearing which was held

on May 10, 2006. Witnesses Robert Taylor and Gary Fleer testified and were subject to crossexamination by counsel for Defendant as well as examination by the Court. Having considered all

the papers, argument of counsel and the testimony of the witnesses whose credibility the Court has

observed and assessed, the Court concludes there was no spoliation of evidence. 

The Court makes the following factual findings: 

1. Charger #1462 sent to Textron by TK Power for Textron’s testing in 2006 (as ordered

by the Court) was not uploaded with the software sent to Fleer from

Stojanovic/Taylor on January 5, 2006. 

2. Charger #1462 had the same software that resided in it since 2003. Fleer loaded the

November, 2003 version of the software onto chargers #1461 and #1462 after #1462

was returned from Textron following testing of #1462 by Dr. Wells. Importantly,

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 212 Filed 05/11/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

that November 2003 software had been sent to Carlton Hearn of Textron on

November 3, 2003. 

3. There is nothing to indicate that any chargers have been loaded with some version of

software formulated after the last version was sent to Textron in November, 2003. 

There is no evidence, therefore, that any charger was tampered with or altered by TK

Power in a way that would give TK Power an unfair or secret advantage in the testing

process for purposes of this litigation.

Defendant’s motion is DENIED. This order disposes of Docket Nos. 170 and 197.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2006

 EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-05098-EMC Document 212 Filed 05/11/06 Page 2 of 2