Cost Shifting – Page 9 – Electronic Discovery Law

Castillon v. Corrections Corp. of Am., No. 1:12-cv-005590EJL, 2014 WL 517505 (D. Idaho Feb. 7, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendant produced data from timekeeping system in searchable .PDF format and provided attestation from the vice president of technology and chief information officer that that .PDF was the ?only, built-in, reasonably accessible data format? and that producing in the requested format would require Defendant to undertake the ?lengthy and daunting? task of writing a script and where Plaintiffs did not specify the format of production in their request, the court declined to compel re-production of the at-issue data, but noted that if Plaintiffs were willing to pay for the expense of writing a script, ?they may approach Defendant with such a request.?

Nature of Case: Prisoners’ civil rights

Electronic Data Involved: Data from timekeeping system

Ingrid & Isabel, LLC v. Baby Be Mine, LLC, No. 13-cv-01806, 2014 WL 1338480 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied issue preclusion sanctions without prejudice, ordering defendants to pay monetary sanctions of $20,444, produce all hard drives and any other electronic storage media subject to court-approved protocol for inspection, and provide plaintiff’s experts with access to defendants’ various e-mail, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook and eBay accounts, in light of serious concern as to whether defendants met their discovery obligations and real danger that evidence may be destroyed

Nature of Case: Breach of settlement agreement resolving trademark infringement and unfair competition claims

Electronic Data Involved: Defendants’ hard drives and various e-mail, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook and eBay accounts

Bell Inc. v. GE Lighting, LLC, 6-14-CV-00012, 2014 WL 1630754 (W.D. Va. Apr. 23, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court ordered partial cost-shifting of third party?s costs in responding to subpoena upon evaluating several factors, including the third party?s (poor) financial condition, but declined to shift all costs where the third party declined the requesting parties? offer to review the documents – through outside counsel – subject to a clawback agreement (resulting in higher costs) and where the court found the third party was an interested party and that the litigation was not of public importance; court noted in its discussion that ?Courts in this district have found that it is untenable for a party to insist on individually reviewing all documents for privilege and responsiveness, rather than producing documents under a protective order with a claw back provision.?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Illiana Surgery and Med. Care Ctr. LLC v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., NO. 2:07 cv 3, 2014 WL 1094455 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 19, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Following evaluation of the relevant eight part test, court declined to shift the costs of producing emails stored on Defendant?s backup system pursuant to Rule 26(b)(2)(B) (inaccessible data) but placed limitations on the discovery allowed and ordered Defendant to restore eight weeks of backup tapes at its own expense and to search them for the requested emails and invited Plaintiff to renew its motion if, after Defendant?s search was complete, it could show that ?further exploration? was necessary

Nature of Case: Insurance Litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Emails stored on backup tapes

EEOC v. SVT, LLC, No. 2:13-CV-245-RLM-PRC, 2014 WL 2177796 (N.D. Ind. May 22, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendant utilized third party?s hiring program to allow applicants to apply online, etc. and had limited access to the system?s data (i.e., limitations on the format and content of reports from the system), the court found that the data that could be regularly accessed by the defendant per its contract with the third party was accessible and subject to production and that data housed by the third party and not readily available to the defendant was ?not reasonably accessible . . . because of both undue burden and cost? and ordered that if the EEOC wanted the inaccessible data, it would have to pay for it

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (Kronos)

Audio Visual Innovations, Inc. v. Burgdolf, No. 13-10372, 2014 WL 505565 (E. D. Mich. Feb. 3, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Forensic examination of defendants’ electronic devices was appropriate given nature of case and allegations against individual defendants; court identified particular devices to be examined and provided specific guidelines for the examination and review of ESI, but denied plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees since defendants’ objections were reasonable; court further ruled that costs associated with obtaining the information from the devices would be borne by plaintiff

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on defendant’s electronic devices

Klipsch Group, Inc. v. Big Box Store Ltd., No. 12 Civ. 6283 (VSB)(MHD), 2014 WL 904595 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to issue litigation hold and their belated oral instructions were inadequate both in form and content, court authorized plaintiff to undertake a forensic investigation into state of defendants’ computer systems for purpose of determining likelihood of document destruction, likely nature and volume of any such destroyed documents, whether some or all of those documents may be recovered, and the status of sales information on the computers; court deferred ruling on plaintiff’s motion for adverse inference instruction or cost-shifting pending results of investigation

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: E-mails and other ESI

Network Cargo Sys. U.S.A., Inc. v. Pappas, No. 13 C 9171, 2014 WL 1856773 (N.D. Ill. May 7, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where e-discovery consultant jointly retained by parties reported that three previously undisclosed flash drives had been connected to former employee’s personal computers during the relevant time period, court agreed with plaintiff that consultant should be allowed to image and review the three flash drives but ruled that costs of such review would be borne by plaintiff given the likely limited usefulness of the search

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of confidential information

Electronic Data Involved: Flash drives and other electronic devices used by former employee

FDIC v. Baldini, No. 1:12-7050, 2014 WL 1302479 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 28, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for protective order, rejecting plaintiff’s proposed protocol that would require defendants to supply search terms (which plaintiff would then apply to the ESI) and require defendants to pay ESI copying costs; court ordered plaintiff to fashion initial set of search terms and work with defendants to reach agreement on search terms to be used, and set out protocol to be followed by the parties for the production

Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duties, negligence

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., v. East-West Logistics, LLC, No. 1-12-1111, 2014 WL 1292905 (Ill. App. Ct. Mar. 31, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered defendant to pay $3,026 of plaintiff’s requested $18,771 electronic discovery costs, as court had discretion under court rule to issue a protective order as justice required, had ordered the parties to confer on the scope of production and reserved the allocation of costs, and had properly balanced defendant’s need for the discovery material against the expense of the production incurred by plaintiff

Nature of Case: Action to collect amounts due under credit agreement and enforce guaranty

Electronic Data Involved: Electronically stored documents

Tag:Cost Shifting