Cost Shifting – Page 13 – Electronic Discovery Law

Fed. Deposit Ins. Co. v. Johnson, No. 2:12-cv-00209-KJD-PAL, 2013 WL 1195698 (D. Nev. Mar. 22, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Considering competing ESI protocols, court approved FDIC?s protocol which included provision that Defendant would pay $.06 per page for documents selected for physical production after review in an electronic database citing, among other things, the fact that the FDIC had already spent $791,000 to locate and produce responsive information and relying on a line of cases ?which have held that a party responding to discovery requests is responsible for the initial costs of reviewing and preparing paper documents and ESI for inspection and copying, but is not responsible for paying copying costs for voluminous materials.?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Parsi v. Daioleslam, No. 08-705 (JDB), 2013 WL 1403226 (D.D.C. Apr. 8, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court addressed Defendant?s final bill of recoverable costs and request for reimbursement for expenses related to his prior motion for sanctions, including costs related to two rounds of forensic imaging by PricewaterhouseCoopers, and, after deducting and discounting certain costs, awarded recovery in the amount of $71,624.08 for the costs of imaging and related attorneys? fees

Electronic Data Involved: Costs related to forensic imaging

Thornton v. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney, LLC, No. 12-CV-298-JED-FHM, 2013 WL 1890706 (N.D. Okla. May 3, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where defendant sought to shift costs based on the expected expense of reviewing and producing the emails which was estimated to be more than $500,000, the court acknowledged that cost could be a legitimate basis for cost shifting under Rule 26(b)(2)(C), but found that the burden of the requested discovery did not outweigh its likely benefit and was not disproportionate to the case and also noted that the defendant had not established that ?a particular level of review is necessary in this case or that a ?claw back? agreement or [FRE] 502 order would not reduce or eliminate the estimated costs?

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Lynch v. Math-U-See, Inc., No. 13cv402-GPC (WMc), 2013 WL 2444662 (S.D. Cal. June 4, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court declined to quash subpoena based on the burden of reviewing the requested emails prior to production where, because the request sought all messages to or from particular persons, the court determined that no review of the emails was necessary (that is to say, if the email was to or from one of the identified persons, it was responsive to the subpoena and thus subject to production regardless of content); because the movant was a non-party, however, the court indicated its inclination to set a reasonable cost of production, before production was complete, to prevent the responding party from manipulating production to increase the award and to streamline production and ordered the requesting party to pay the responding non-party $420.00 ?as reasonable compensation for compliance?

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Novick v. AXA Network LLC, No. 07 Civ. 7767(AKH)(KNF), 2013 WL 5338427 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Conducting its cost-shifting analysis ?under the Zubulake standard,? court reasoned that defendants ?failed to show that cost-shifting is appropriate because they did not establish that the production at issue was unduly burdensome or expensive, that is, that the data were kept in an inaccessible format.?

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

West Penn Allegheny Health Sys. v. UPMC, No. 2:09-cv-00480-JFC, 2013 WL 12134101 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 15, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where a non-party resisted production of requested information arguing that it could be more easily obtained from elsewhere and that production would impose an undue burden, including an estimated $38,00 in personnel costs alone, the court reasoned that there was no rule prohibiting Plaintiff from seeking documents from a non-party that were also likely to be in Defendant?s possession and, addressing the alleged burden, rejected arguments based on the documents? lack of organization (?less than optimal recordkeeping? did not rise to the level of ?undue burden?); where the requesting party offered to pay the costs of collection and review (by outside counsel), court rejected non-party?s privacy concerns in light of the protective order and recommended that if the non-party rejected the cost sharing offer, he should be required to pay for production himself; motion to quash denied

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Cannata v. Wyndham Worldwide Corp., No. 2:10-cv-00068-PMP-VCF, 2012 WL 528224 (D. Nev. Feb. 17, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where parties could not agree on search protocol, including the number of custodians and number of search terms and whether ?terms of a sexual nature? should be included as search terms, the court appointed a special master to resolve the dispute, split the costs of the special master (unevenly) between the parties, and ordered that if the number of terms and custodians combined exceeded 40, plaintiff would reimburse 5% of defendant?s e-Discovery compliance costs for each occurrence (e.g., if the final search involved 22 custodians and 25 sites, plaintiffs would be responsible for 25% of defendants? cost [7 x 5%]); because sexual harassment related claims were at issue, ?ESI containing sexual terms is discoverable?

Nature of Case: Sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, hostile work environment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Pouncil v. Branch Law Firm, No. 10-1314-JTM-DJW, 2012 WL 777500 (D. Kan. Mar. 7, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where evidence indicated that defendant?s responses to discovery were incomplete, court ordered defendant to ?proceed with the forensic search of their computer systems using protocols agreed upon by the parties? but declined to compel defendant to bear the cost of the examination until final costs were known; defendant was also ordered to institute a litigation hold where defendant?s deposition testimony established that none had previously been issued

Nature of Case: Malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

United States v. Comty. Health Ctr. Of Buffalo, No. 05-CV-237A(F), 2012 WL 3136485 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiff was able to recover potentially relevant ESI on defendants? backup tapes which had been produced to plaintiff without restriction following defendants erroneous determination that no responsive documents were contained thereon (as the result of using insufficient software to read the data) and where plaintiff therefore sought unrestricted access to the information, except for privileged documents, and for defendants to pay plaintiff?s cost to review the information, the court determined that defendants? production of the tapes waived their objections to Plaintiff?s efforts to locate responsive information but that the failure to identify potentially responsive documents was not in bad faith and that the information on the tapes was not reasonably accessible and denied Plaintiffs? motion for reimbursement for the cost of reviewing the tapes

Nature of Case: False Claims Act

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on “back-up magnetic tapes”

White Baptist Mem?l Healthcare Corp., No. 08-2478, 2012 WL 3776918 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 29, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion seeking reversal of Clerk?s entry of bill of costs and specifically found that costs related to ?OCR capture? which the court acknowledged was a ?form of electronic discovery? were recoverable and that the OCR capture in this case was a necessary party of the discovery process

Nature of Case: Violation of FLSA

Electronic Data Involved: Costs related to electronic discovery

Tag:Cost Shifting