Cost Shifting – Page 19 – Electronic Discovery Law

Goshawk Dedicated, Ltd. v. Amer. Viatical Servs., LLC, 2010 WL 5250360 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 4, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Clarifying the nature of its order regarding costs, court stated that its prior order requiring plaintiff to deposit funds into the court registry sufficient to cover the third party?s anticipated costs of producing ESI specifically excluded attorney?s fees but did not preclude recovery of them, and ordered compliance with its prior order

Nature of Case: Fraud and negligence claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Sunbeam Prods., Inc. v. Homedics, Inc., No. 08-cv-376-slc, 2010 WL 2571983 (W.D. Wis. June 21, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s motion for review of costs, including costs related to forensic recovery of electronic data, where the court found that the costs requested by defendant were ?authorized by statute and were reasonably and necessary to the litigation?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Estate of Eva Boles v. Nat?l Heritage Realty, Inc., 2010 WL 1759026 (N.D. Miss. Apr. 27, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where production of defendants? general ledger was necessary because there was no suitable alternative to provide the information, but where defendants? counsel asserted that such production would require ?hundreds of hours? and involve great expense, court noted defendants failure to produce any details in support of its assertion and that plaintiff was willing to bear the reasonable costs and granted plaintiff?s motion to compel

Electronic Data Involved: General ledger in electronic format

Medcorp, Inc. v. Ponpoint Tech., Inc., 2010 WL 2500301 (June 15, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where special master determined spoliation was ?willful in the sense that ?Plaintiff was aware of his responsibilities to preserve relevant evidence and failed to take necessary steps to do so? and thus ordered an adverse inference and for each party to bear half of defendant?s attorneys? fees and costs, magistrate judge affirmed the adverse inference upon determining it was the least harsh sanction that would provide an adequate remedy but vacated the award of half of defendant?s fees and, upon determining a reasonable amount, ordered plaintiff to pay the amount of $89,395.88

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives

Estate of Boles v. Nat?l Heritage Realty, Inc., 2010 WL 2976076 (N.D. Miss. July 23, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied defendants? motion to produce the ?general ledger? in hard copy, with redactions, where the record made clear that defendants made no real attempt to comply with the court?s order compelling electronic production and, where defendant offered no proof of any court order prohibiting disclosure of the information contained in the ledger, where there was a sufficient protective order in place, and where ?matters involving payment of attorney fees are generally not privileged,? the court vacated prior orders allowing redactions and ordered production of the general ledger on CD or DVD within 3 days

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic copy of general ledger

Chevron Corp. v. Stratus Consulting, Inc., 2010 WL 3489922 (D. Colo. Aug. 31, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted petitioner?s motion to compel production of subpoenaed information in native format, including re-production of materials already produced in .pdf format, where, despite respondent?s objections, the court determined the underlying metadata could be probative, but ordered petitioner to bear the cost where the subpoena had been ?less than clear? regarding the format of production and where respondents? claims of undue burden ?carrie[d] some legitimacy?; court?s opinion acknowledged respondent?s argument regarding the inability to Bates stamp native documents and ordered that the documents be Bates-stamped ?only as technologically possible?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Response Personnel, Inc. v. Aschenbrenner, 909 N.Y.S.2d 433 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where a lower court denied plaintiff?s motion for a protective order and ordered the production of tax returns and other documents in electronic format at plaintiff?s expense, the appellate court affirmed the denial of the protective order and the order compelling electronic production but found that requiring plaintiff to bear the costs imposed an undue burden where ?generally, the costs of production is borne by the party requesting the production, and the cost of creating electronic documents here would not be inconsequential?

Electronic Data Involved: Tax returns and other documents in electronic form

Silverman v. Shaoul, 913 N.Y.S.2d 870 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court held that ?precedent shows that the requesting party bears the cost of electronic discovery when the data sought is ?not reasonably available? upon a showing of undue burden and denied defendant?s order to show cause to compel plaintiffs to pay the costs where defendants data was neither archived nor deleted but simply stored in a number of places and interspersed with other business documents

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Chenault v. Dorel Indus., Inc., No. A-08-CA-354-SS, 2010 WL 3064007 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court approved defendant?s recovery of costs related to the creation of an electronic database where the database was utilized to reduce the otherwise recoverable costs of printing the approximately 800,000 pages of emails produced to plaintiffs

Electronic Data Involved: Costs of electronic database created in lieu of printing emails for production

Viacom Int?l, Inc. v. YouTube Inc., 2009 WL 102808 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted defendants? motion to compel production of third party?s materials related to plaintiffs despite objections where documents sought were relevant and where the alleged burden was insufficient in light of probable reimbursement to third party by plaintiffs, plaintiffs? performance of the necessary privilege review, and third party?s prior success in reducing the volume of responsive documents; where defendants sought third party material unrelated to plaintiffs, court ordered defendants and third party to meet and confer regarding scope of production and ordered defendants to bear the cost; court also ordered meet and confer regarding format of production, including specific consideration of granting defendants access to Kroll database where documents were stored

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Cost Shifting