Kim

Subscribe to Kim via RSS

Sievert Electric Service and Sales Company v. Storako, et al., No. 22 CV 6380 (N.D. Ill. July 24, 2025) (Kim, Mag. J.).

Magistrate Judge Kim issued a comprehensive discovery order in this Defend Trade Secrets Act case, addressing multiple motions to compel and highlighting important ESI and privilege issues.

Of particular interest, the Court rejected…

Nucap Indus. Inc. v. Robert Bosch LLC, et al., No. 15 C 2207, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Dec. 7, 2017) (Kim, Mag. J.).

Judge Kim granted without prejudice defendants’ (collectively “Bosch”) motion for a protective order barring the deposition of Bosch GmbH’s Chairman, absent re-noticing and demonstrated need for the deposition.

Plaintiff Nucap claimed…

Earthy, LLC v. BB&HC, LLC, No. 16 C 4934, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 10, 2017) (Kim, Mag. J.).

Magistrate Judge Kim granted declaratory judgment defendant BB&HC’s motion to quash a subpoena of an individual member of BB&HC in this trademark dispute involving BB&HC’s EARTHY DELIGHTS mark.

Because the individual member had a “minimal…

NuCap Indus., Inc. v. Robert Bosch LLC, NO. 15 C 2207, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 19, 2016) (Gottschall, J.).

Judge Gottschall overruled plaintiff NuCap’s objections to Magistrate Judge Kim’s decision denying NuCap the right to serve additional discovery related to defendant Robert Bosch’s alleged change in position during litigation in this trade secret…

Coach Services, Inc. v. Durbin’s Restaurant & Bar, No. 10 C 7154, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jul. 25, 2012) (Kim, Mag. J.).

Judge Kim continued plaintiff’s motion to compel a third party deposition in order to give the third party an opportunity to comply.  The Court gave the third party two options:

1.         Appear …

Itex, Inc. v. Work Rite Uniform Co., No. 08 C 1224, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2011) (Kim, Mag. J.).
Judge Kim granted in part defendants’ motion to compel supplemental answers to defendants’ requests for admission. The requests at issue sought an admission regarding whether plaintiff had performed very specific tests as part of its pre-suit investigation. Plaintiff objected on the ground that answering the request would violate its attorney-client privilege and attorney work product protections. But the Court held that the requests were “artfully” drafted to avoid seeking any indication of whether the tests were performed at the request of counsel or not. Instead, the requests simply sought an admission as to whether the specific tests were performed at all. The Court also noted that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require proof of a denial, which had been given in this case despite that.
…
Continue Reading Answer Regarding Whether a Test Was Performed Does Not Violate Privilege

In late January, the Northern District’s six newest judges attended a Federal Bar Association* panel to offer insights into their practices and chambers. The recurring theme of the discussion was a call for civility: Civility in court. Civility in briefs. Civility in emails. Over the next several weeks, I will provide summaries of each judge’s comments and insights. This post (the fifth in the series) focuses upon Magistrate Judge Kim:
Be civil in court and in your papers.
Do not include extraneous emails or exhibits to score points. They do not work.
Tell your story in your answer, do not just deny.
Rule 56.1 statements: short and concise facts.
…
Continue Reading New N.D. Illinois Judges Panel: Judge Kim

Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC v. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc., No. 95 C 4088, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jun. 29, 2010) (Kim, Mag. J.).
Judge Kim granted declaratory judgment defendant Trading Technologies (“TT”) approximately $290,000 of $375,000 requested in fees and costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2) in this patent case.* On March 14, 2007, the Court held that declaratory judgment plaintiff Rosenthal Collins Group’s (“RCG”) summary judgment motion was “misleading,” “disingenuous” and “prematurely filed” – click here to read more about the opinion in the Blog’s archives. The Court, therefore, found RCG’s conduct sanctionable, struck the motion without prejudice, struck the supporting Buist declaration, and ordered RCG to pay costs for TT’s software consultants, and attorney’s fees and costs related to the sanction motion.
On July 17, 2008, the Court denied RCG’s motion to vacate the sanction order and again ordered RCG to pay: 1) TT’s consultant; 2) TT’s deposition of the Buists; and 3) TT’s prosecution of the sanctions motions. The Court also ordered the parties to comply with Local Rule 54.3 by trying to come to agreement on the issues.
Initially, the Court observed that “contentiousness and obvious material distrust” demonstrated by both sides had “leached” into the parties briefing. The Court awarded TT the full amount of its expert fees and costs because those fees and costs were specifically awarded by Judge Moran and because TT showed that all of the expert’s work was impacted by or resulted from the misconduct. Those fees were approximately $52,000.
The Court also awarded TT’s attorney’s fees and costs of approximately $157,000 related to the depositions of the experts at issue. The only reduction was for a series of identical, cryptic time entries for “preparation of Buist witness kit”. The court could not determine whether the fees were justified. The Court awarded TT its actual costs, instead of limiting the costs to the Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) limits because this sanction award was pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and, therefore, was not limited by Rule 54(d). The Court finally awarded $86,000 in fees and costs related to TT’s sanctions motion. The Court generally found TT’s fees and expenses reasonable, with limited exceptions. The Court limited fees for writing a “simple” two-page motion to two hours. The Court also deleted approximately $11,000 in apparently duplicative time entries.
…
Continue Reading Trading Technologies: Court Awards Rule 37 Discovery Sanctions