Cost Shifting – Page 11 – Electronic Discovery Law

Spears v. First Am. eAppraiseit, No. 5-08-CV-00868-RMW, 2014 WL 6901808 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Non-party JPMorgan Chase Bank moved for an order compelling Plaintiffs to reimburse Chase over $450,000 in costs for producing over 334,000 pages of documents. Chase sought reimbursement under FRCP 45(d)(2)(b)(ii); Plaintiffs argued Chase could not recover costs unless the production resulted from a court order. The Court found that a court order is not required to shift costs and that costs may be shifted under Rule 45(d)(2)(B)(ii) if the requesting party is on notice that the non-party will seek reimbursement of costs. The Court ultimately denied Chase?s motion, stating ?it would be unfair?to reimburse Chase for costs?where Chase failed to inform plaintiffs it would later seek reimbursement??

Nature of Case: RESPA class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

United States ex rel Becker v. Tools & Metals, Inc., Nos. 3:05-CV-0627-L, 3:05-CV-2301-L, 2013 WL 1293818 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court addressed at length the recovery of costs related to electronic discovery in action alleging violations of False Claims Act and affirmed recovery of costs, although with some adjustments, for ?uploading and creating a search index? (done by vendor), electronic hosting costs, and forensic imaging, but did not allow recovery of costs related to vendor?s efforts to repair broken or corrupt files where asking for reproduction of those files would have been free

Nature of Case: False Claims Act

Electronic Data Involved: Costs related to electronic discovery

Clay v. Consol Penn. Coal Co., No. 5:12CV92, 2013 WL 4854746 (N.D. W. Va. Sep. 11, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where defendants were dilatory in participating in discovery and did not begin searching for ESI until plaintiff was on the brink of filing his second motion to compel, district court affirmed magistrate judge?s recommendation that plaintiff?s motion for default judgment be denied because there was no showing of bad faith on the part of defendants and prejudice to plaintiff could be alleviated through imposition of less drastic sanctions, such as allowing plaintiff to re-depose certain witnesses at defense expense, allowing plaintiff to exceed the deposition limit, and awarding plaintiff reasonable expenses (including attorneys’ fees) of the motion

Nature of Case: Race discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Fed. Deposit Ins. Co. v. Brudnicki, No. 5:12-cv-00398-RS-GRJ, 2013 WL 2948098 (N.D. Fla. June 14, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where discovery would be asymmetrical and Plaintiff would be producing the majority of documents in the case, court approved a protocol that would require the parties to cooperate to develop search terms to identify potentially relevant documents to be uploaded to a database for Defendant?s review for the purpose of identifying documents to be produced and which would require Defendant to pay $.06 per page produced and $225 monthly for each gigabyte uploaded into the database; court held cost-shifting was appropriate where Plaintiff had already identified and collected the potentially responsive information at great expense and compared the $.06 charge to photocopying costs in traditional discovery and also cited and considered the factors of Rule 26(b)(2)(C), which provide authority for cost shifting and ?strongly supported? the Plaintiff?s proposed ESI protocol

Nature of Case: Action against Bank’s former directors for negligence and gross negligence related to approval of 11 transactions

Electronic Data Involved: ESI in FDIC database

Lifetouch Nat?l School Studios, Inc. v. Moss-Williams, No. C10-05297, 2013 WL 11235928 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where a former employee (defendant) admitted prior possession of a thumb drive containing Plaintiff?s data (her prior employer) and that she had connected the thumb drive to her new employer?s computers (who is also a defendant) but where she claimed that she had not transferred any of Plaintiff?s information, that she could not recall the computer she connected to, and that she destroyed the drive before her duty to preserve arose, court reasoned that there was a ?sufficient nexus between the defendant?s computers and the alleged misappropriation of trade secrets to warrant forensic imaging of the computers? (over 60 in number) but, applying the cost-shifting analysis from Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC 217 FRD 309 (SDNY 2003), found that in light of the ?broad scope of the request, the cost of production, the resource disparity of the parties? and defendant?s repeated assertion that the information did not exist, cost shifting was appropriate; court indicated it ?may reconsider? cost allocation if the expert determined that information from the thumb drive was transferred to defendant?s computer

Nature of Case: Trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: ESI of former employer

Maximum Human Performance, LLC v. Sigma-Tau Healthscience LLC, No 12-cv-6526-ES-SCM, 2013 WL 4537790 (D.N.J. Aug. 27, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Upon third party?s objection to Defendant?s subpoena and its motion for cost shifting, the court found that the third party both had an interest in the litigation and an ?ability to pay all or most of the costs to comply with the subpoena? but nonetheless concluded that ?it would not bear all of the costs of compliance? and thus ordered the third party to select an e-Discovery vendor to search the key words agreed upon and ordered that Defendant shall reimburse the third party ?one third of the vendor costs to harvest the electronically stored information?

Nature of Case: Product liability

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Soffer v. Five Mile Capital Partners, LLC, No. 2:12-cv-01407-JAD-GWF, 2013 WL 4499011 (D. Nev. Aug. 19, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court indicated that dispute over whether to compel Defendants to conduct additional searches in an expanded date range turned on Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) and the question of whether the burden outweighed the likely benefit but, citing Plaintiff?s prior offer to more narrowly tailor the search terms to be utilized and to contribute to the reasonable costs of Defendants? review, ordered the parties to meet to attempt to reach agreement on a more focused search and to negotiate a reasonable cost sharing agreement and indicated that the court would consider shifting ?an appropriate share of the costs of production? once a determination of the cost was made

Nature of Case: Interference with a contract and prospective economic advantage, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

West Penn Allegheny Health Sys. v. UPMC, No. 2:09-cv-00480-JFC, 2013 WL 12134101 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 15, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where a non-party resisted production of requested information arguing that it could be more easily obtained from elsewhere and that production would impose an undue burden, including an estimated $38,00 in personnel costs alone, the court reasoned that there was no rule prohibiting Plaintiff from seeking documents from a non-party that were also likely to be in Defendant?s possession and, addressing the alleged burden, rejected arguments based on the documents? lack of organization (?less than optimal recordkeeping? did not rise to the level of ?undue burden?); where the requesting party offered to pay the costs of collection and review (by outside counsel), court rejected non-party?s privacy concerns in light of the protective order and recommended that if the non-party rejected the cost sharing offer, he should be required to pay for production himself; motion to quash denied

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Whiteamire Clinic, P.A., Inc. v. Quill Corp., No. 12 C 5490, 2013 WL 5348377 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 24, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where defendant sought to avoid production of ESI arguing that the retrieval of the requested information from its information systems would be unduly burdensome because of the manner in which the ESI was stored, the court noted that accepting such an explanation would create a ?perverse incentive? encouraging companies to store their data in a way that made it inaccessible except at great burden or cost and granted plaintiff?s motion to compel; court ordered defendant to produce an image of the hard drives of its four relevant information systems to Plaintiff?s expert who would retrieve the relevant information and provide it to defendant for review before production to the plaintiff; Plaintiff would bear the costs (voluntarily).

Nature of Case: Violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act (sending of unwanted faxes)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI related to recipients of faxes

Newill v. Campbell Transportation Co., No. 2:12-cv-1344, 2013 WL 6002349 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 12, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court found defendant failed to conduct a reasonable investigation for responsive materials prior to serving its Initial Disclosures and responding to Plaintiff?s first requests for production where defendant failed to discover relevant photographs of the accident site taken by a former employee despite knowing that it was ?standard procedure? for such photographs to be taken; responding to Defendant?s claim that it needn?t extend its investigation to former employees, the court noted that ?[a]nalyzing the practical ability of corporations to obtain work-related documents from former employees, courts insist that corporations, at the very least, ask their former employees to cooperate before asserting that they have no control over documents in the former employees’ possession.? Export?Import Bank, 233 F.R.D. at 341 (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

Nature of Case: Jones Act negligence case

Electronic Data Involved: Digital photographs

Tag:Cost Shifting