Cost Shifting – Page 13 – Electronic Discovery Law

Ewald v. Royal Norwegian Embassy, No. 11-CV-2116 SRN/SER, 2013 WL 6094600 (D. Minn. Nov. 20, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: District court affirmed in part magistrate judge?s order (at 2013 WL 5687559) denying plaintiff?s request for forensic examination of laptop computers used by plaintiff during her employment, as defendant produced 56,625 pages of documents from most recently used laptop, and burden and expense of forensic examination of previous laptop outweighed its likely benefit, given that plaintiff did not assert even a belief that relevant information existed on that computer that was not produced from other sources; court reversed in part magistrate judge?s order denying access to text and voice messages, finding that plaintiff demonstrated that ?the scale tips in her favor? in regard to two mobile phones provided by defendant to plaintiff and another witness for work-related purposes, and ordering parties to meet and confer upon protocol to be used in conducting search for responsive text messages and voice messages contained on the two devices

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Work laptops, and text messages and voice messages on certain mobile devices

Novick v. AXA Network LLC, No. 07 Civ. 7767(AKH)(KNF), 2013 WL 5338427 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Conducting its cost-shifting analysis ?under the Zubulake standard,? court reasoned that defendants ?failed to show that cost-shifting is appropriate because they did not establish that the production at issue was unduly burdensome or expensive, that is, that the data were kept in an inaccessible format.?

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

IBM Corp. v. ACS Human Servs., LLC, 999 N.E.2d 880 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse its discretion when it awarded third party some, but not all, of its discovery costs under court rule where court awarded all costs of non-party?s e-discovery vendor ($355,329) and one-half of non-party?s costs for dedicated document review team ($354,070), basing the 50% reduction on non-party?s ?largely unexplained? delay in producing documents and principles of general equity; nor did trial court abuse its discretion when it awarded IBM $425,179 in sanctions against same third party representing some, but not all, attorneys? fees and other costs IBM incurred as a result of non-party?s failure to comply with discovery orders, as court had authority under court rules and its inherent power to issue sanctions against non-parties, non-party?s resistance to or failure to comply with discovery orders was not substantially justified and sanctions were not otherwise unjust, and non-party?s conduct was sanctionable as IBM filed multiple motions to compel, trial court found that non-party?s opposition was not reasonable, and trial court intervened numerous times in the discovery process to secure non-party?s compliance

Nature of Case: IBM and the State of Indiana filed lawsuits against one another related to the State’s Family and Social Services Administration modernization initiatives

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

W. Penn. Elec. Employees Pension Fund v. Alter, No. 2:09-cv-04730-CMR, 2013 WL 4803564 (E.D. Pa. June 26, 2013), approved and adopted in substantial part, 2013 WL 4799061 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 6, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: In this Report and Amended Recommended Order, Special Discovery Master agreed with plaintiffs that they should have the opportunity to confirm, though inspection by neutral e-discovery vendor already retained by parties, defense counsel?s representations as to contents of individual defendant?s belatedly-disclosed hard drive, because without the requested examination, there was no way to know if, in fact, hard drive contents were duplicative of data already produced by another party as the individual defendant claimed; Special Master found request was not unreasonable given the centrality of the defendant in events giving rise to the lawsuit, the unsubstantiated nature of defense counsel?s claim that the data was duplicative, that the defendant had provided only limited discovery to plaintiffs, that the defendant, through his counsel, had previously denied possession of any responsive data when the hard drive had been in his home and responsive documents were on his personal computer, much time and money had been expended in the effort to obtain the documents from other sources, and plaintiffs should not be expected to accept without question the claim that the defendant ?simply forgot? he had received company documents prior to his departure; district court subsequently adopted recommendation but modified deadlines and division of costs

Nature of Case: Securities class action

Electronic Data Involved: Material on hard drive belatedly disclosed by individual defendant

First Fin. Bank N. A. v Bauknecht, No. 12-CV-1509, 2013 WL 3833039 (C.D. Ill. July 23, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Magistrate Judge granted a motion to compel a search of all of defendant?s email accounts , not limited to the 4 specific individuals listed in the Rule 26(a) disclosures, reasoning that the 26(a) disclosure ?only meant? that the individuals identified may be used to support defendant?s claims or defense and that defendant did not indicate that the specified employees were the only ones to have responsive documents. The court denied Plaintiff?s request to compel Defendant to conduct separate searches of its email, one by ?recipient/sender? and one ?by subject matter? using specified search terms and reasoned that the latter search was broader, but indicated that Plaintiff could pay for the second search. Having declined to limit the accounts to be searched, the court acknowledged the likelihood that accounts unlikely to have relevant information would be included, and shifted 25% of the cost to the requesting party (Plaintiff).

Nature of Case: Breach of Employment Contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

E.E.O.C. v. Original Honeybaked Ham Co. of Georgia, Inc., No. 11-cv-02560-MSK-MEH, 2013 WL 753480 (D. Colo. Feb. 27, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Following up on its November 2012 opinion (2012 WL 5430974), the court adopted the EEOC?s proposed search terms (with certain additions proposed by Defendant) and amended its November order to hold that the EEOC would bear the initial costs of the Special Master appointed for the purpose of conducting the relevant searches of Plaintiffs? email, social networks, and cell phones and could seek reimbursement from the Defendant by motion and argument at an appropriate time (court had initially ordered that the parties would bear the cost equally

Nature of Case: Sexual Harassment, retaliation

Electronic Data Involved: Social media, text messages, email

U.S. ex rel Yannacopoulos v. Gen. Dynamics, No. 03 C 3012, 2012 WL 1748120 (N.D. Ill. May 15, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court awarded electronic copying costs incurred in response to plaintiffs? production request

Electronic Data Involved: Exemplification costs

Adair v. EQT Prod. Co., No. 1:10cv00037, 2012 WL 1965880 (W.D. Va. May 31, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Considering the burden of production and the court?s ability to relieve it, the court held that consideration of the cost of review alone, related to otherwise accessible data, can be considered in deciding whether discovery imposes an undue burden or cost and may form the basis for a court?s decision to shift costs; court noted in this case, though, that a protective order and clawback agreement combined with a proposal to preclude production of any documents to or from in-house or outside counsel precluded defendant’s need to conduct a expensive privilege review and ordered production in accordance with the court?s order; affirmed with minor modifications 2012 WL 2526982

Electronic Data Involved: Esi

Vietnam Veterans of Am. v. Central Intelligence Agency, No. 09-cv-0037 CW (JSC), 2012 WL 2375490 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: In dispute over 24 40-year old magnetic tapes, 6 of which defendants had attempted to restore with only partial success (contents of 2 of the 6 tapes were recovered), the court found the information on the tapes to be not reasonably accessible in light of the significant but only partially successful recovery efforts but, recognizing the potential relevance of the contents, ordered that plaintiff would be allowed to attempt recovery (using outside vendors with sufficient security clearance) at their own expense and that if recovery was successful, the court would consider a cost-shifting motion

Electronic Data Involved: 40-year old magnetic tapes

In re Application of Wilson & Partners, No. 06-cv-02575-MKS-KMT, 2012 WL 1901217 (D. Colo. May 24, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court found that third party failed to establish the reasonableness or necessity of attorney?s fees related to setting up a database to assist in production, including dealing with administrator of that database and thus upheld recommendation against recovery of attorney?s fees; court affirmed recommendation against recovery of costs related to manual review and production that resulted from abandonment of the document database (because of problems with the database) where the Magistrate Judge determined the review was an ?unnecessarily incurred expense, which [the requesting party] had no ability to control or contain;? court adopted recommendation ordering that third party respondents be responsible for half the cost of the database

Tag:Cost Shifting