Cost Shifting – Page 12 – Electronic Discovery Law

James v. UMG Recordings, Inc., No. 11-cv-01613-SI (MEJ), 2013 WL 5978322 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs could surely foresee the need to manipulate royalty data but did not specify production in electronic form, and defendant had already twice produced the documents and argued that production of electronically formatted royalty statements would require creation of new documents not currently in existence, court denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of the data in electronic format, stating that plaintiffs’ proffered justification that Excel format would be more convenient “falls far short of the mark”; court further denied plaintiffs’ request for receipts data, finding that the burden of reprogramming royalty database and creating new software to extract information far outweighed usefulness of ordering production given that plaintiffs stated they could discern the data by extrapolation

Nature of Case: Consolidated putative class action for breach of contract and other claims filed by recording artists and producers who alleged that defendant underpaid royalties on digital downloads of plaintiffs’ recordings

Electronic Data Involved: Royalty statements in Excel format, receipts from download transactions with vendors

Fair Hous. Ctr. of S.W. Mich. V. Hunt, No. 1:09-cv-593, 2013 WL 5719152 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 21, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Ruling on plaintiffs? motion for taxation of attorney?s fees and costs, magistrate judge concluded that, although plaintiffs? counsel was entitled to award of fees, fee request was unreasonable in part because the hours devoted to the case were excessive; magistrate judge harshly criticized counsel?s ?unreasonable zeal? and ?single-minded focus? on discovery of ESI: ?The level of effort expended by plaintiffs? counsel to track down the last responsive e-mail . . . was not reasonable in this case. It appeared to this court on more than one occasion that plaintiffs were treating the case as a litigation workshop on discovery of ESI rather than a lawsuit. This case did not involve discovery of patent records contained in Ford Motor Company?s super-computers. Rather, the subject matter of the litigation was an apartment complex in Kalamazoo, run by a marginally competent apartment manager who used a desktop and a laptop. He was often in over his head, especially with regard to record-keeping and computer use. Ninety-nine out of 100 lawyers would never consider making this case the occasion for extensive discovery of electronic evidence. And no client paying his or her own bills would ever authorize such an expensive hunt for marginal evidence.?

Nature of Case: Housing discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Ewald v. Royal Norwegian Embassy, No. 11-CV-2116 SRN/SER, 2013 WL 6094600 (D. Minn. Nov. 20, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: District court affirmed in part magistrate judge?s order (at 2013 WL 5687559) denying plaintiff?s request for forensic examination of laptop computers used by plaintiff during her employment, as defendant produced 56,625 pages of documents from most recently used laptop, and burden and expense of forensic examination of previous laptop outweighed its likely benefit, given that plaintiff did not assert even a belief that relevant information existed on that computer that was not produced from other sources; court reversed in part magistrate judge?s order denying access to text and voice messages, finding that plaintiff demonstrated that ?the scale tips in her favor? in regard to two mobile phones provided by defendant to plaintiff and another witness for work-related purposes, and ordering parties to meet and confer upon protocol to be used in conducting search for responsive text messages and voice messages contained on the two devices

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Work laptops, and text messages and voice messages on certain mobile devices

IBM Corp. v. ACS Human Servs., LLC, 999 N.E.2d 880 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded third party some, but not all, of its discovery costs under court rule where court awarded all costs of non-party?s e-discovery vendor ($355,329) and one-half of non-party?s costs for dedicated document review team ($354,070), basing the 50% reduction on non-party?s ?largely unexplained? delay in producing documents and principles of general equity; nor did trial court abuse its discretion when it awarded IBM $425,179 in sanctions against same third party representing some, but not all, attorneys? fees and other costs IBM incurred as a result of non-party?s failure to comply with discovery orders, as court had authority under court rules and its inherent power to issue sanctions against non-parties, non-party?s resistance to or failure to comply with discovery orders was not substantially justified and sanctions were not otherwise unjust, and non-party?s conduct was sanctionable as IBM filed multiple motions to compel, trial court found that non-party?s opposition was not reasonable, and trial court intervened numerous times in the discovery process to secure non-party?s compliance

Nature of Case: IBM and the State of Indiana filed lawsuits against one another related to the State’s Family and Social Services Administration modernization initiatives

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

W. Penn. Elec. Employees Pension Fund v. Alter, No. 2:09-cv-04730-CMR, 2013 WL 4803564 (E.D. Pa. June 26, 2013), approved and adopted in substantial part, 2013 WL 4799061 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 6, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: In this Report and Amended Recommended Order, Special Discovery Master agreed with plaintiffs that they should have the opportunity to confirm, though inspection by neutral e-discovery vendor already retained by parties, defense counsel?s representations as to contents of individual defendant?s belatedly-disclosed hard drive, because without the requested examination, there was no way to know if, in fact, hard drive contents were duplicative of data already produced by another party as the individual defendant claimed; Special Master found request was not unreasonable given the centrality of the defendant in events giving rise to the lawsuit, the unsubstantiated nature of defense counsel?s claim that the data was duplicative, that the defendant had provided only limited discovery to plaintiffs, that the defendant, through his counsel, had previously denied possession of any responsive data when the hard drive had been in his home and responsive documents were on his personal computer, much time and money had been expended in the effort to obtain the documents from other sources, and plaintiffs should not be expected to accept without question the claim that the defendant ?simply forgot? he had received company documents prior to his departure; district court subsequently adopted recommendation but modified deadlines and division of costs

Nature of Case: Securities class action

Electronic Data Involved: Material on hard drive belatedly disclosed by individual defendant

Lifetouch Nat?l School Studios, Inc. v. Moss-Williams, No. C10-05297, 2013 WL 11235928 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where a former employee (defendant) admitted prior possession of a thumb drive containing Plaintiff?s data (her prior employer) and that she had connected the thumb drive to her new employer?s computers (who is also a defendant) but where she claimed that she had not transferred any of Plaintiff?s information, that she could not recall the computer she connected to, and that she destroyed the drive before her duty to preserve arose, court reasoned that there was a ?sufficient nexus between the defendant?s computers and the alleged misappropriation of trade secrets to warrant forensic imaging of the computers? (over 60 in number) but, applying the cost-shifting analysis from Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC 217 FRD 309 (SDNY 2003), found that in light of the ?broad scope of the request, the cost of production, the resource disparity of the parties? and defendant?s repeated assertion that the information did not exist, cost shifting was appropriate; court indicated it ?may reconsider? cost allocation if the expert determined that information from the thumb drive was transferred to defendant?s computer

Nature of Case: Trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: ESI of former employer

First Fin. Bank N. A. v Bauknecht, No. 12-CV-1509, 2013 WL 3833039 (C.D. Ill. July 23, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Magistrate Judge granted a motion to compel a search of all of defendant?s email accounts , not limited to the 4 specific individuals listed in the Rule 26(a) disclosures, reasoning that the 26(a) disclosure ?only meant? that the individuals identified may be used to support defendant?s claims or defense and that defendant did not indicate that the specified employees were the only ones to have responsive documents. The court denied Plaintiff?s request to compel Defendant to conduct separate searches of its email, one by ?recipient/sender? and one ?by subject matter? using specified search terms and reasoned that the latter search was broader, but indicated that Plaintiff could pay for the second search. Having declined to limit the accounts to be searched, the court acknowledged the likelihood that accounts unlikely to have relevant information would be included, and shifted 25% of the cost to the requesting party (Plaintiff).

Nature of Case: Breach of Employment Contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

D.G. ex rel Strickland v. Yarbrough, No. 08-CV-074-GKF-FHM, 2013 WL 1343151 (N.D. Okla. Mar. 31, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Addressing magistrate judge?s recommendations on plaintiffs? Motion for Award of Class Counsel Fees and Expenses, the district court accepted the magistrate judge?s recommendation that plaintiffs be awarded out of pocket expenses related to data storage and hosting (of electronic discovery), with some reductions; district could did not accept recommendation that plaintiffs recover for attorneys fees related to ?temporary attorneys? who conducted review of emails where there was no description provided of the work performed and where the district court took issue with plaintiffs characterization of the time as an ?expense? ?[r]ather than properly documenting and describing the time expended by the[ ] temporary attorneys?

Nature of Case: Class action, recovery of attorneys fees pursuant to 42 USC ? 1988

Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. V. Earl Scheib, Inc., No. 11-CV-0788-GPC (WVG), 2013 WL 485846 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where Defendant presented evidence that the cost of retrieving the requested information?not including the cost of attorney review or the time spent coordinating the production–was equal to the amount in controversy, the court concluded that the requests at issue were unduly burdensome and found that even where Plaintiff had explained the relevancy of the information sought, ?the expense associated with responding ? [was] too great when weighed against what is at stake in the litigation?; court?s analysis included consideration of inaccessibility based on the costs of production and noted that other discovery was available

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Am. Nurses Assoc., No. 08-CV-0378 2013 WL 588992 (D. Md. Feb. 13, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Relying on Fed R Civ P 45(c), court granted third party?s request to shift discovery costs related to its search for and production of requested information and noted that the costs could have been controlled had plaintiffs participated in the selection of an e-Discovery vendor more quickly following the court?s original order shifting costs (the Scope of Work and the Estimated Cost Overview had been amended six times) and had plaintiffs sought the at-issue documents from the defendant hospitals first, rather than a third party; court declined to shift all of the third party?s attorneys fees, however, noting that ?[s]ubpoenas are a cost of doing business in today?s society?

Electronic Data Involved: Database contents, ESI

Tag:Cost Shifting