Cost Shifting – Page 12 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. V. Earl Scheib, Inc., No. 11-CV-0788-GPC (WVG), 2013 WL 485846 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where Defendant presented evidence that the cost of retrieving the requested information?not including the cost of attorney review or the time spent coordinating the production–was equal to the amount in controversy, the court concluded that the requests at issue were unduly burdensome and found that even where Plaintiff had explained the relevancy of the information sought, ?the expense associated with responding ? [was] too great when weighed against what is at stake in the litigation?; court?s analysis included consideration of inaccessibility based on the costs of production and noted that other discovery was available

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

In re Am. Nurses Assoc., No. 08-CV-0378 2013 WL 588992 (D. Md. Feb. 13, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Relying on Fed R Civ P 45(c), court granted third party?s request to shift discovery costs related to its search for and production of requested information and noted that the costs could have been controlled had plaintiffs participated in the selection of an e-Discovery vendor more quickly following the court?s original order shifting costs (the Scope of Work and the Estimated Cost Overview had been amended six times) and had plaintiffs sought the at-issue documents from the defendant hospitals first, rather than a third party; court declined to shift all of the third party?s attorneys fees, however, noting that ?[s]ubpoenas are a cost of doing business in today?s society?

Electronic Data Involved: Database contents, ESI

FDIC v. Giannoulias, No. 12 C 1665, 2013 WL 5762397 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 23, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where defendants propounded 242 requests for documents, trial court declined to require FDIC to review thousands of documents ?to weed out a presumably small subset of irrelevant materials,? or to organize its Phase II production according to defendants? numerous discovery requests; court granted in part and denied in part the parties? respective motions concerning search terms to be used to identify responsive material, and ruled that FDIC would bear the costs of production as they arose subject to the possibility that the court may later require contribution from the defendants; court further directed FDIC to submit to the court a revised proposed ESI protocol

Nature of Case: Receiver sued former directors and officers of bank to recover approximately $114 million in losses bank suffered on 20 commercial real estate loans

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, including email

Fed. Deposit Ins. Co. v. Johnson, No. 2:12-cv-00209-KJD-PAL, 2013 WL 1195698 (D. Nev. Mar. 22, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Considering competing ESI protocols, court approved FDIC?s protocol which included provision that Defendant would pay $.06 per page for documents selected for physical production after review in an electronic database citing, among other things, the fact that the FDIC had already spent $791,000 to locate and produce responsive information and relying on a line of cases ?which have held that a party responding to discovery requests is responsible for the initial costs of reviewing and preparing paper documents and ESI for inspection and copying, but is not responsible for paying copying costs for voluminous materials.?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

James v. UMG Recordings, Inc., No. 11-cv-01613-SI (MEJ), 2013 WL 5978322 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs could surely foresee the need to manipulate royalty data but did not specify production in electronic form, and defendant had already twice produced the documents and argued that production of electronically formatted royalty statements would require creation of new documents not currently in existence, court denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of the data in electronic format, stating that plaintiffs’ proffered justification that Excel format would be more convenient “falls far short of the mark”; court further denied plaintiffs’ request for receipts data, finding that the burden of reprogramming royalty database and creating new software to extract information far outweighed usefulness of ordering production given that plaintiffs stated they could discern the data by extrapolation

Nature of Case: Consolidated putative class action for breach of contract and other claims filed by recording artists and producers who alleged that defendant underpaid royalties on digital downloads of plaintiffs’ recordings

Electronic Data Involved: Royalty statements in Excel format, receipts from download transactions with vendors

D.G. ex rel Strickland v. Yarbrough, No. 08-CV-074-GKF-FHM, 2013 WL 1343151 (N.D. Okla. Mar. 31, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Addressing magistrate judge?s recommendations on plaintiffs? Motion for Award of Class Counsel Fees and Expenses, the district court accepted the magistrate judge?s recommendation that plaintiffs be awarded out of pocket expenses related to data storage and hosting (of electronic discovery), with some reductions; district could did not accept recommendation that plaintiffs recover for attorneys fees related to ?temporary attorneys? who conducted review of emails where there was no description provided of the work performed and where the district court took issue with plaintiffs characterization of the time as an ?expense? ?[r]ather than properly documenting and describing the time expended by the[ ] temporary attorneys?

Nature of Case: Class action, recovery of attorneys fees pursuant to 42 USC ? 1988

Tag:Cost Shifting