Cost Shifting – Page 14 – Electronic Discovery Law

Perez-Garcia v. Puerto Rico Ports Auth., No. 08-1448 (GAG), 2012 WL 2553274 (D.P.R. July 3, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court found request for sanctions for defendant?s failure to retain records dating back to 1995 was not supported by the rules or the case law on the subject and stated that ?Corporations may maintain their records according to their business practices, so long as the record keeping does not afoul [sic] of the rules outlined by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Rules of Evidence and judicially created rules of the court.? Addressing plaintiff?s citation to an Eighth Circuit case ?that states that a negative inference can be given when the company?s policy for retention of documents is unreasonable or in bad faith,? (Remington Arms Co. , 836 FRD 1103 (8th Cir. 1988)) the court found that defendant?s policy was neither unreasonable nor in bad faith

Nature of Case: Claims arising from crash of golf cart perhaps related to faulty emergency brake

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Minter v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., —F.R.D.—, 2012 WL 4903315 (D. Md. Oct. 12, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing production of business records pursuant to Rule 33(d) and, more specifically, who should bear the cost of imaging and segregating the relevant information from the many other pages of information with which the at-issue data was maintained, the court addressed the question of who would bear a heavier burden in locating and extracting the information (or whether the burden was even), determined it would be the plaintiffs (noting, for example defendant?s reliance on particular software not available to plaintiffs) and rejected defendant?s offer to do the work if plaintiffs bore the costs; court found that defendant must bear the cost of imaging and producing the data requested; court also addressed case scheduling in light of the time estimates for accomplishing the production and considered defendant?s resources, including the number of scanners and personnel that were required to complete the task, before ordering a deadline accordingly

Nature of Case: Alleged scheme to generate unlawful fees related to loan applications

Electronic Data Involved: Rule 33(d) business records

Adkins v. EQT Prod. Co., No. 1:10cv00041, 2012 WL 5465491 (W.D. Va. May 31, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing Defendant?s Motion for a Protective Order based on undue burden, court was ?persuaded? that no review was necessary to protect privilege because of the parties? Clawback Order and further found that a reasonable approach in light of Defendant?s assertions of burden (including that processing and review costs could exceed 4 million dollars, as represented by Defendant?s litigation support vendor) was to require Defendant to search and filter its ESI itself (rather than relying on the vendor), with all emails to be designated ?confidential? which would then shift the burden to Plaintiff?s counsel to determine if the ESI produced was over or under inclusive; Court specifically held that ?the court may consider the cost of review of ESI for privileged or responsive information in deciding whether discovery imposes an undue burden or cost on a responding party. Furthermore if the court were inclined to limit discovery based on the burden or cost of the review, I hold that the court could shift the costs of that review, either in whole or in part, to the requesting party.?

Nature of Case: Class action based on alleged entitlement to royalty payments

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI

U.S. Bank Nat?l Assoc. v. PHL Variable Ins. Co., No. 12 Civ. 6811(CM)(JCF), 2012 WL 5395249 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Considering burdensome nature of subpoenas to non-parties, court found that cost shifting was appropriate and ordered plaintiff to bear the search, collection and production costs associated with the non-parties? compliance with the subpoenas; non-parties? were ordered to bear their own costs associated with privilege review, but, in order to give them ?the option of conducting a more economical analysis while minimizing the risk of waiver,? the court entered a non-waiver order pursuant to Rule 502(d) that would preclude the disclosure of privileged documents from resulting in waiver in any proceeding

Nature of Case: Alleged breach of insurance policies and violations of various related laws

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Fleisher v. Phoenix Life Ins. Co., No. 11 Civ. 8405 (CM)(JCF), 2012 WL 6732905 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court addressed Plaintiff?s motion to compel production and declined to shift defendant?s discovery costs where defendant addressed only two of seven factors to be considered when seeking to shift costs but sua sponte entered a 502(d) order to ease defendant?s production burden if they chose to avail themselves of it; court?s analysis made clear that counsel?s resources are not an appropriate consideration in a cost shifting analysis

Nature of Case: Claims arising from insurance company’s alleged improper rate increase

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Pacific Coast Marine Windshields Ltd. v. Malibu Boats, LLC, No. 6:12-cv-33-Orl-28DAB, 2014 WL 10817204 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 30, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where defendant?s contractor produced CAD files with incorrect creation dates and was subsequently ordered to produce his computer for inspection in an unaltered state, but ran a file-deletion or ?computer cleaning/wiping? program named ?CCleaner? the night before delivering the computer for inspection, court found that sanctions were appropriate to keep defendant from benefitting from contractor?s intentional conduct and to deter others from similar conduct in the future; contractor would not be allowed to testify at trial, all evidence that originated with contractor would be excluded, defendant would not be allowed to rely on contractor?s deposition testimony for summary judgment purposes or at trial, and defendant was required to pay plaintiff?s reasonable attorneys? fees and cost of forensic investigation conducted by plaintiff?s forensic expert

Nature of Case: Patent infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives of defendant’s contract CAD software operator; metadata and contents of CAD files

Beck v. Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc., No. 04-1391(JDB), 2012 WL 10817176 (D.D.C. Sep. 25, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Defendant?s lackluster effort to retrieve e-mail after hard drives crashed constituted a conscious disregard of its preservation obligations that could fairly be described as gross negligence or recklessness, and warranted sanctions in the form of an adverse inference instruction; court declined to impose sanctions for defendant?s failure to preserve telephone recordings since there was insufficient evidence that any relevant calls were actually recorded and should have been preserved

Nature of Case: Consumer Protection Procedures Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: E-mails and telephone call recordings

In re Application of Wilson & Partners, No. 06-cv-02575-MKS-KMT, 2012 WL 1901217 (D. Colo. May 24, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court found that third party failed to establish the reasonableness or necessity of attorney?s fees related to setting up a database to assist in production, including dealing with administrator of that database and thus upheld recommendation against recovery of attorney?s fees; court affirmed recommendation against recovery of costs related to manual review and production that resulted from abandonment of the document database (because of problems with the database) where the Magistrate Judge determined the review was an ?unnecessarily incurred expense, which [the requesting party] had no ability to control or contain;? court adopted recommendation ordering that third party respondents be responsible for half the cost of the database

Rawal v. United Air Lines Inc., No. 07 C 5561, 2012 WL 581146 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 22, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court sustained objections to taxation of costs related to processing email accounts and other files into searchable format where the services were performed by the ?litigation support department? of defendant?s outside counsel and went ?far beyond the mere reproduction or exemplification of documents? and instead comprised the ?kind of work conventionally performed by attorneys and paralegals, the costs of which are not recoverable?

Nature of Case: Discrimination and retaliation

In re Subpoena to Creeden & Assocs., No. 12C 5573, 2012 WL 4580841 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing plaintiff?s motion to enforce a subpoena, the court focused on the issue of the burden to the third party and granted plaintiff?s motion as to the requests for production with some limitations and also conducted an 8-part cost shifting analysis which resulted in the court?s order that plaintiff was to bear 60 of the third party?s ?staff research and production costs? and 30 of the third party?s ?legal costs?; court indicated that the ?lower legal percentage [was] a reflection of what the Court believe[d] was [the third-party?s] recalcitrance to meaningfully participate in legal negotiations concerning discovery thus far? and that ?[t]he lower legal fee-shifting amount is also an attempt to get [the third party] to object only to those points it really cares about?

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Tag:Cost Shifting