Key Insight: Identifying a difference between costs expended for converting a paper document into an electronic one and creating electronically searchable documents, the court denied defendant?s request for recovery of costs related to ?electronic records initial processing, Metadata extraction, [and] file conversion?
Nature of Case: Employment litigation
Key Insight: Court granted protective order precluding obligation to search archived emails or emails stored on backup tapes where such emails were ?not reasonably accessible? in light of the estimated $1.5 million retrieval costs and because backup tapes are generally considered inaccessible, and where plaintiffs failed to establish good cause for such production; where defendant offered a ?scaled back alternative,? court ordered parties to split the cost of retrieving emails from a particular subset of backup tapes and provided plaintiffs the opportunity to compel searches of an additional subset of tapes – at their expense – including the cost of review
Nature of Case: Allegations of discriminatory safety inspections of African American owned buses en route to Atlantic City
Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes, email
Key Insight: Where government agency objected to defendants? subpoena for the production of documents previously produced in a separate litigation on grounds of undue burden and cost based on the assertion that it needed to re-review all documents prior to production because some documents were subject to the deliberative process privilege and others were highly confidential, court held that the privilege had been waived by the agency?s failure to object in its initial response and by the production in separate litigation, ordered the documents produced under the POD ?Confidential, For Outside Attorney Eyes Only? and ordered defendants to bear the costs ?of copying and producing the documents in electronic form?
Nature of Case: Allegations that defendants artificially increased the published price of prescription drugs
Electronic Data Involved: ESI previously produced in separate litigation and maintained in database by third party
Key Insight: Court denied defendants? motion for cost sharing for their review and production of electronically stored information where the parties had implicitly agreed to be responsible for their own expenses, where plaintiffs already took steps to eliminate the cost to defendants of repeatedly producing documents, and where defendants failed to establish that plaintiffs? request had caused undue burden or expense or that they would in future; court instructed defendants to file motions for protective orders specifically identifying the requests creating the burden and expense to allow the court to address the objections
Nature of Case: Products liability
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
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
Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion seeking production of emails from particular custodians and rejected defendant?s argument that cost of production should be shifted where defendants did not challenge the relevance of the emails at issue, where plaintiff?s ?reasonably limited their request to avoid undue burden? to defendants, and where the court?s consideration of the Zubulake factors resulted in a determination that cost shifting was not appropriate
Nature of Case: Class action against DSHS
Electronic Data Involved: Emails
Key Insight: Recognizing a ?division of opinion? as to whether e-discovery vendor costs are recoverable, court called the ?highly technical? services provided by the e-discovery vendor the ?21st century equivalent of making copies,? noted that ?taxation of these costs will encourage litigants to exercise restraint in burdening the opposing party with the huge cost of unlimited demand for electronic discovery? and overruled and denied plaintiff?s objection to taxation as costs of the e-discovery consultant?s fees; Summary judgment reversed and costs vacated in CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., Nos. 1010-1201, 2010-1203, 2011 WL 3487023 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 10, 2011)
Nature of Case: Patent Infringement
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiffs to bear cost of non-party?s production in response to plaintiffs? subpoena where Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 provides for protection of a non-party from undue burden or expense and where the court found the non-party?s expenditure of $6,000 to respond ?significant?; court?s analysis also noted the parties? failure to fix production costs in advance, as discussed in the Advisory Committee Notes, and plaintiffs? awareness of the possibility that the non-party would request reimbursement
Nature of Case: Breach of contract
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court granted Plaintiff?s motion that Defendants bear the costs Plaintiff incurred in producing archived emails, implicated by Defendant?s 30(b)(6) notice. The notice came after a year and a half of discovery and one month before the discovery deadline. Plaintiff was required to use a third party to conduct the search, put the retrieved emails on discs, send them to a copy service to convert to TIFF files and print them so Plaintiff?s counsel could review for relevancy and privilege. Plaintiff spent approximately $35,000 on this process. The Court held that Plaintiff?s Motion was timely and Defendants had notice before the emails were produced that Plaintiff was seeking costs, Plaintiff met its burden of showing the cost and burden incurred were undue and conversion of the discs to TIFF format was necessary in order for Plaintiff?s counsel to review the emails prior to production.
Nature of Case: Insurance indemnification
Electronic Data Involved: Archived email
Key Insight: Finding that defendants? first, second, and third productions were ?patently inadequate? and that ?representations by defendants and their attorneys as to the completeness of production were false,? court concluded plaintiffs had incurred some expense as a result of defendants? discovery behavior and that ?the required expenditure of funds to pursue discovery is prejudice enough to justify cost-shifting?; addressing plaintiffs? specific request to shift costs related to the search of back-up tapes resisted by defendants, court declined to shift costs where plaintiffs had not proposed an electronic discovery plan at the outset of litigation and where plaintiffs failed to meaningfully address Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) in their briefing
Nature of Case: Trademark infringement
Electronic Data Involved: ESI, database information, back up tapes
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.