Cost Shifting – Page 24 – Electronic Discovery Law

Paul v. USIS Commercial Servs., Inc.Slip Copy, 2007 WL 2727222 (D. Colo. Sept. 17, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied defendant?s post-trial motion for reimbursement of $292,000 incurred to preserve large volume of ESI as demanded by plaintiff at outset of litigation, finding that plaintiffs? demand, while arguably unreasonable, was not so abusive as to warrant sanctions; court noted that, where plaintiff demanded preservation of huge amounts of ESI and parties were not able to agree on narrowed scope of information to be preserved, defendant, ?like all parties, was left to make a reasonable judgment about what information must be preserved?

Nature of Case: Putative class action under Fair Credit Reporting Act

Electronic Data Involved: Information in all databases maintained by defendant, any and all e-mail, and other broad categories of information

Nat?l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh v. Clearwater Ins. Co., 2007 WL 2106098 (S.D.N.Y. July 21. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of email from 113 backup tapes, estimated to cost between $45,200 and $79,100, plus attorney’s time in reviewing documents, since defendant had not sufficiently demonstrated that responsive emails relating to settlement negotiations existed on the backup tapes, which covered time periods that were months after the settlement was reached; court noted that if moving party wished to pay to restore the backup tapes, it may do so

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Email stored on backup tapes

In re Seroquel Prods. Liab. Litig., 2007 WL 4287676 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 6, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court rejected non-party’s claim that it was entitled to recover full amount of fees expended to retrieve, identify and review 25 project files sought by plaintiffs (estimated to be $28,950, including $18,750 in attorneys fees for 50 hours of review), since non-party should have reasonably anticipated being involved in the discovery process of subsequent litigation concerning the marketing/prescribing behavior it studied, the cost could be borne by the non-party as overhead, and cost was less than four fifths (4/5) of one percent of the revenue the non-party generated from work on Seroquel products

Nature of Case: Drug product liability class action

Electronic Data Involved: 25 electronically-maintained project files relating to market research that non-party Harris performed on behalf of AstraZeneca with respect to Seroquel

Haka v. Lincoln County, 246 F.R.D. 577 (W.D. Wis. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Balancing relevant factors, court ruled that fairness and efficiency required parties to proceed with search for ESI incrementally and limited initial search to emails stored on hard drives; court instructed plaintiff to narrow his search terms, and any additional searches would occur only by joint agreement or court order; parties to share equally the costs of performing initial keyword search, but defendant to pay full cost of privilege/relevance review

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other ESI

Guy Chem. Co., Inc. v. Romaco AG, 243 F.R.D. 310 (N.D. Ind. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where non-party used outside computer firm to handle its electronic data and estimated that cost to comply with subpoena would be $7,200, court found that data was “not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost” but ordered production in light of good cause shown, with cost of production to be paid by party who issued subpoena

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Routine business documents stored electronically

Digene Corp. v. Third Wave Techs. Inc., 2007 WL 5731934 (W.D. Wis. July 27, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to produce emails alleged to contain too little relevant information to justify production costs, court declined to compel production unless defendant indicated willingness to bear 100% of cost, including privilege review; court indicated that upon defendant?s discovery of ?highly relevant, non-cumulative information,? court may require plaintiff to pay fraction of cost

Nature of Case: Patent infringement and antitrust claims

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Digene Corp. v. Third Wave Techs., Inc., 2007 WL 4939048 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 24, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where discovery missteps which resulted in delayed production of notebooks were merely negligent and not reckless or intentional, court imposed penalty of cost-shifting and reimbursement in the amount of $50,000 and declined to impose any of the ?inquisitorial sanctions? demanded by plaintiff; court further ruled that ?no [defense] attorneys will be dragged behind a chariot outside the city’s walls.?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement and antitrust claims

Electronic Data Involved: Scientists’ notebooks that were converted into electronic format

C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. v. Thorp, 2006 WL 3300396 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 14, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Preliminary injunction ordered former employee to return customer information to plaintiff and to make available all personal computing devices in his home for inspection and review by an expert hired by plaintiff at plaintiff’s expense

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheets and home computing devices

Clever View Invs., Ltd. v. Oshatz, 2006 WL 305467 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Magistrate ordered parties to share cost of $15,182 hard copy production (responding party to pay 60 percent and requesting party to pay 40 percent) where parties failed to seek assistance from the court prior to the copying, and where some of the reproduction was unnecessary since much of the information was available through other means, including on CD

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: CD containing purchase orders

Balboa Threadworks, Inc. v. Stucky, 2006 WL 763668 (D. Kan. Mar. 24, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: During initial case management conferences, court ordered mirror imaging of all of defendants’ computers and peripheral equipment, e.g., ZIP drives, to be done at plaintiffs’ expense, and ordered parties to meet and confer on appropriate search protocol that would address the issue of protection of attorney client privilege and non-business related personal information which may be located on the computer hard drives

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, fraud and civil conspiracy

Electronic Data Involved: All defendants’ computers and peripheral equipment

Tag:Cost Shifting