Cost Shifting – Page 24 – Electronic Discovery Law

Wiley v. Paulson, 2007 WL 7059722 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel metadata associated with hard copy emails where government established the metadata was not reasonably accessible because of substantial and prohibitive burden and cost; court denied motion without prejudice leaving room for plaintiff to re-file her motion and establish a factual bases for her demand and noted that if such a motion were granted in future, plaintiff would bear the cost

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Metadata associated with hard copy emails

Self v. Equilon Enters., LLC, 2007 WL 427964 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 2, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: In order issued after parties’ status hearing on production of electronic documents, court recounted history of discovery conferences and orders addressing defendants’ production, including court’s prior order directing defendants to produce all emails tagged by the search term “transfer price” whether deemed relevant or not after completing a privilege review, and concluded that, since plaintiffs had not shown that need for further electronic discovery outweighed burdens and costs of retrieving and producing such information, and had not shown that defendants were withholding or ?cherry picking? relevant emails, plaintiffs would bear the costs of all additional email searches, if any

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Frees, Inc. v. McMillian, 2007 WL 708593 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 5, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where first tier of discovery showed numerous similarities between certain CAD files, drawing and specifications maintained by the parties, court found that second tier of limited additional discovery was warranted and ordered defendant’s current employer to produce materials relating to four additional projects; court further entered order on parties’ agreement relating to forensic imaging of current employer’s computer servers and desktops at plaintiff’s expense

Nature of Case: Design firm sued former vice president under Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

Electronic Data Involved: Computer files

Ameriwood ind., Inc. v. Liberman, 2007 WL 5110313 (E.D. Mo. July 3, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendants used “Window Washer” disk scrubbing software on hard drives just days before they were to be turned over to forensic expert, and also performed “mass deletions” of electronic files, court found that defendants’ intentional actions evidenced a serious disregard for the judicial process and had prejudiced plaintiff; court entered default judgment in favor of plaintiff and shifted to defendants plaintiff’s costs, attorney’s fees, and computer expert’s fees relating to motions for sanctions and forensic imaging and recovery of defendants’ hard drives; jury trial to proceed solely on issue of plaintiff’s damages

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives

Thielen v. Buongiorno USA, Inc., 2007 WL 465680 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 8, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court granted defendant’s motion to compel forensic inspection of plaintiff’s computer and defendant’s sole expense, but limited the scope of the inspection to determining whether, during the relevant time period, plaintiff accessed defendant’s website or a website which advertised defendant’s services, what interaction plaintiff had with such websites and what, if any, information concerning those internet transactions was subsequently deleted

Nature of Case: Cellular phone user alleged that defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 by sending text messages to plaintiff’s cell phone without his permission

Electronic Data Involved: Plaintiff’s computer hard drive

Autotech Techs. Ltd. P?ship v. Automationdirect.com, Inc., 2007 WL 2746650 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 17, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant argued that extracting requested information regarding 56,000 to 60,000 customer invoices from computer system would cost as much as $80,000, and alternative method for extracting information proposed by plaintiff was unsuccessful, court held parties to their prior agreement and determined that reasonable allocation was for plaintiff to pay 62 percent and defendant to pay the remainder; court further ordered defendant to provide proof of actual cost and proof of actual payment and stated that, if defendant is able to extract information for less than $80,000 or if parties arrive at different cost-shifting formula, that will control

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Customer information stored in database

Io Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc., 2007 WL 1113800 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel and denied defendant’s request to shift costs of production to plaintiff, since defendant provided no information about whether and how such information was “inaccessible” or any other information relevant to cost-shifting determination under Zubulake III; court encouraged parties to agree on most efficient means of production and noted that plaintiff had indicated willingness to provide high capacity storage devices

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Adult video content; website traffic information

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

Wedding & Event Videographers Ass’n Int’l, Inc. v. Videoccasion, Inc., 2006 WL 821809 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where defense counsel withdrew defendants’ objections to plaintiff’s request to inspect, at its expense, defendants’ computers, court denied as moot plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Inspection of Defendants’ Computers, Other Electric Equipment and Electronic Storage Devices and ordered the parties to include a stipulated plan for electronic discovery in their Case Management Report

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement, deceptive and unfair business practice, conversion

Electronic Data Involved: Defendants’ computers

Tag:Cost Shifting