Cost Shifting – Page 20 – Electronic Discovery Law

D.G ex rel. Stricklin v. Henry, 2009 WL 455266 (N.D. Okla. Feb. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

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

Orbit One Commc?ns, Inc. v. Numerex Corp., 2009 WL 799975 (E.D. La. Mar. 20, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

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

Adele S.R.L. v. Filene?s Basement, Inc., 2009 WL 855955 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

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

Surplus Source Group, LLC v. Mid-Am. Engine, 2009 WL 961207 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where the need for a third search of defendants? electronically stored information resulted from plaintiffs? delay in providing search terms, court ordered defendants to undertake third search, using terms provided by plaintiffs, but ordered plaintiffs to bear the cost of the third search, up to the amount equal to the second search, reasoning that such an order would essentially result in plaintiffs bearing the cost of the second search which was insufficient because of their delay

Nature of Case: Claims arising from defendants? alleged failure to split profits from sales of industrial equipment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Application of Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd., 2009 WL 119374 (D. Colo. Apr. 30, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Reasoning that electronic storage devices ?perform the same function as did a file cabinet in the pre-electronic era? and that they must therefore be searched ?just as they would have had to do had all the information been printed out and stored in hard copy format? and also reasoning that ?[t]he fact that duplicate documents may have been stored and maintained in more than one place is irrelevant to the duty to search all locations,? court ordered respondents to subpoenas to conduct additional searches of all electronic storage devices in their possession at the time of their response; where the sharing of production costs had been ordered, court required requesting party to post $1 million pre-judgment cost bond in light of the ?circumstances of the case? including respondents? expenditure of more than $2.5 million and fears that the requesting party would dispute their share and attempt to avoid payment

Nature of Case: Litigation between an international law firm and a new firm comprised of its former employees related to the new firm?s alleged interference in business relationships and breach of certain duties

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

McGarry v. Becher, 2009 WL 1363456 (S.D. Ind. May 13, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Rejecting defendant?s claims that production of data stored in taser units related to the time and number of firings would be unduly burdensome in light of the high number of times the tasers were fired, including test firings required each day, Court granted in part plaintiff?s motion to compel production of the data upon finding that the device stored data related to no more than 585 firings, among other things, and where defendants made no showing that the printing of those entries would be unduly expensive; court ordered plaintiff to bear any cost of printing or downloading the information in excess of $200

Nature of Case: Potential class action regarding use of tasers in county jail

Electronic Data Involved: Data stored in taser related to date and time fired

Covad Commc?ns Co. v. Revonet, Inc., 258 F.R.D. 5 (D.D.C. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where parties failed to reach agreement regarding inspection protocol for defendant?s relevant database, court stepped in and ordered plaintiff?s expert to image relevant servers and PCs and to search those systems for relevant documents; having generally declined to order searching of defendant?s exchange servers absent more than conclusory assertions of a deficient production, court found compelling justification for a comparative search of certain exchange servers where, in light of a previous server crash and subsequent restoration of the content, questions arose regarding the identification of all responsive emails

Nature of Case: Misappropriation and conversion of trade secret information

Electronic Data Involved: Database, emails, ESI

Omnicare, Inc. v. Mariner Health Mgmt. Co., 2009 WL 1515609 (Del. Ch. May 29, 2009)(Unpublished)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff sought to compel defendants to restore backup tapes containing emails that were automatically deleted but where defendants objected to restoration and production due to cost, court denied plaintiff?s motion and ordered defendants to produce relevant data from their ?active stores? first in order to assess the likelihood of finding relevant, discoverable data on the backup tapes; if active stores showed a likelihood of recovery of discoverable data on the backup tapes, court stated that processing at defendants? expense would be appropriate

Nature of Case: Dispute arising between pharamaceutcal suppliers and nursing home operator related to contractual obligations and billing

Electronic Data Involved: Backup tapes

Lawson v. Plantation Gen. Hosp., L.P., 2009 WL 2868891 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 27, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Despite the ?clearly burdensome? process required to restore, review and produce the requested ESI, court ordered production of a specific category of ESI, where ?fairness demand[ed]? plaintiff have an opportunity to review? it, but ordered that if plaintiff continued to desire production of the remaining categories ?for which plaintiff ha[d] a lesser need, in light of all of the other discovery in this matter,? plaintiff must pay half the cost

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Laethem Equip. Co. v. Deere & Co., 2009 WL 2777334 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 27, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court ruled on defendant?s objections to magistrate?s order, including, among other things, addressing issues of privilege pursuant to FRE 502(b) and analyzing the propriety of claims of privilege as to certain categories of documents, including those stored on a server that was available to all employees; court also ordered each party to bear the costs of production for the documents it requested (a direct contradiction to the presumption that the responding party must bear the expense of compliance) where such an order would ?curb [the] bilateral tendency? to broaden discovery demands to include both important and marginal information ?whose primary utility would be found in the burden and cost of production to the other side?

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, statutory violations, tortious interference

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Cost Shifting