Cost Shifting – Page 8 – Electronic Discovery Law

Steward Health Care Sys. LLC v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island, No. 15-272, 2016 WL 8716426 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 4, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Third party objected to Subpoena to produce documents alleging undue burden and significant expense and refused to comply without a cost-shifting order. The Court consequently granted the requesting party?s motion to compel and the third party was ordered to produce all responsive documents by the ?most reasonable and practical method it can procure.? Following production, the third party then sought $30,603.55 in expenses. The Court?s two-prong analysis examined the expenses as to whether they were both reasonable and significant. The Court did not award attorneys? fees because the privilege and confidentiality review was a benefit only to the third party. Partial vendor costs were awarded, namely the amount it would have been had the third party used the vendor suggested by the requesting party and some additional miscellaneous costs were awarded. The Court found a total of $4,072 were expenses that resulted from compliance with the Subpoena and did qualify as ?significant expenses.?

Nature of Case: Antitrust and tort

Electronic Data Involved: Gmail

Hallmark v. Cohen & Slamowitz, LLP, NO. 11-CV-842W(F), 2016 WL 1128494 (W.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Court denied Defendant?s motion for protective order shifting the costs of producing inaccessible data as part of agreed upon sample set where Defendant failed to adequately establish the justification for cost-shifting by submitting broadly stated affidavit that provided no explanation re: source of affiant?s knowledge of his assertions or any explanation of what the term ?inaccessible? was meant to apply to (e.g., digitized records v. hard copy) and where affiant offered no justification for estimates re: required man hour or hourly rates; court indicated that even if Defendant had established its burden, application of the Zubulake factors re: cost-shifting favored Plaintiff

Nature of Case: FCDPA

McQueen v. Aramark Corp. – 201611 (D. Utah, 2016)

Nov 29 2016

Key Insight: Sanctions imposed after defendant’s failure to preserve relevant ESI after receiving a preservation letter from plaintiff.

Nature of Case: Wrongful death.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI work orders and related paper records.

Keywords: Defendant acted with gross negligence, but without intent to deprive the plaintiff of the information’s use in the litigation.

View Case Opinion

Venturedyne v. Carbonyx (ND Ind., 2016)

Nov 15 2016

Key Insight: Specific metrics needed to object to the burden of a key-word search. Defendant objected to document requests on relevancy grounds.

Nature of Case: Contract breach.

Electronic Data Involved: Key-word search of ESI.

Keywords: Cooperation and the negotiation of keywords. Transparency in all aspects of preservation and production of ESI.

View Case Opinion

Brackett v. Stellar Recovery, Inc. (E.D. Tennesee, 2016)

Apr 04 2016

Key Insight: No sanctions when electronically stored information is lost during ordinary course of business.

Nature of Case: Sanctions

Electronic Data Involved: electronically stored information

Keywords: Safe harbor, Rule 37(e), good faith, normal course of business, spoiliation

View Case Opinion

Andra Grp. LP v. JDA Software Grp., LLC, No. 3:15-mc-K-BN, 2015 WL 1636602 (N.D. Tex. April 13, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court addressed 3rd party?s motion to quash allegedly burdensome subpoena and to preclude further production or to require the defendant to pay for the non-party?s expenses and found that the defendant had demonstrated its needs for ?most of the categories of documents? but also concluded that the 3rd party?s objections should be sustained in part and modified the subpoena?s requests to reduce the burden; Court rejected arguments that 3rd party?s lack of a ?dedicated IT specialist?, use of cloud based email and need to rely on employees? and or hire a vendor establish burden; court also found that ?by producing the documents in non-readable PDF format without the metadata specified by the subpoena?s instructions, and failing to serve any written objections to those instructions, p202 failed to comply with Rule 45(a)(1)(C) and 45(e)(1)?s requirement to comply with the subpoena?s specification of a form for producing ESI? and ordered re-production in accordance with the subpoena?s instruction

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Am. Fed. Of Musicians of the U.S. and Canada v. Skodam Films, LLC, NO. 3:15-mc-122-M-BN, 2015 WL 7771078 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 3, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court concluded non-party?s objections to the at-issue subpoena were subject to Rule 34 requirements for objections and, addressing the non-party?s claims of overbreadth and burden, modified the subpoena upon finding that the document requests were ?facially overbroad and pose[d] an undue burden? because they called for the production of ?apparently every document? related to the making of the at-issue movie

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Third party discovery, including ESI

Unichappel Music, Inc. v. Modrock Prods., LLC, No. 14-2382-DDP (PLA), 2015 WL 12697738 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where responding party asserted that an at-issue request would require production of ?voluminous? irrelevant documents, that identification of the requested documents would require searching through thousands of clients files estimated to take ?one or more persons weeks to accomplish? or would cost between $8740 – $18350 if a vendor was retained to assist – not including attorney review, and that the information was available through alternative means, including depositions, the court concluded that the documents were ?at least minimally relevant? but that the burden of FULL production outweighed the benefit to the requesting party and ordered the responding party to utilize search terms or to hire a vendor to produce a more limited set of documents as prescribed by the court; court declined to shift the costs of the search , reasoning (in footnote) that ?[t]he mere fact that responding to a discovery request will require the objecting party ?to expend considerable time, effort and expense consulting, reviewing and analyzing ?huge volumes of documents and information? is an insufficient basis to object? to a relevant discovery request.?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Knauf Insulation, LLC v. Johns Manville Corp., No. 1:15-cv-00111-WTL-MJD, 2015 WL 7089725 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 13, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where Defendants identified 38 potential email custodians who may possess relevant ESI but proposed to load the emails of only ten custodians to save money and ?facilitate the predictive coding process? and where Plaintiff indicated that Defendant refused to informally disclose information sufficient to evaluate the importance of each custodian, the court briefly opined re: e-Discovery and the lack of any guarantee that all relevant documents will be found and then, reasoning that it had no evidence with which to weigh the likelihood that the 28 ?tangential custodians? would have relevant information but that in ?a high value? case the burden of $18,000 (the amount Defendant proposed to save) did not outweigh the potential benefit to Plaintiff of receiving the emails, declined Defendants? request to limit custodians; regarding cost-shifting, the court ordered that if the search of the 28 additional custodians returned fewer than 500 responsive documents Plaintiff would bear the cost of loading the materials but that if more than 500 were identified, Defendant would bear the costs

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Hausman v. Holland Amer. Line – USA, No. 13cv00937 BJR, 2016 WL 11234152

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff sought to shift the costs of ?preparing emails for production? (estimated to be $16,325), the court reasoned that Plaintiff assumed the responsibility for producing relevant documents by initiating the litigation, that cost shifting is ?appropriate ?only when electronic data is relatively inaccessible?? (citing Zubulake v. Warburg LLC, 216 F.R.D. 280 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)), that ?[d]ata may be described as ?inaccessible? due to an undue cost or burden associated with accessing the data,? and concluded that the ?emails in this case [were] readily available? and that the high costs of production were not associated with ?accessing or delivering the emails? but rather with counsel?s review for privilege which was more like attorney?s fees and thus the court denied the motion

Nature of Case: Personal Injury

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Tag:Cost Shifting