Cost Shifting – Page 9 – Electronic Discovery Law

Bell Inc. v. GE Lighting, LLC, 6-14-CV-00012, 2014 WL 1630754 (W.D. Va. Apr. 23, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court ordered partial cost-shifting of third party?s costs in responding to subpoena upon evaluating several factors, including the third party?s (poor) financial condition, but declined to shift all costs where the third party declined the requesting parties? offer to review the documents – through outside counsel – subject to a clawback agreement (resulting in higher costs) and where the court found the third party was an interested party and that the litigation was not of public importance; court noted in its discussion that ?Courts in this district have found that it is untenable for a party to insist on individually reviewing all documents for privilege and responsiveness, rather than producing documents under a protective order with a claw back provision.?

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Illiana Surgery and Med. Care Ctr. LLC v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., NO. 2:07 cv 3, 2014 WL 1094455 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 19, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Following evaluation of the relevant eight part test, court declined to shift the costs of producing emails stored on Defendant?s backup system pursuant to Rule 26(b)(2)(B) (inaccessible data) but placed limitations on the discovery allowed and ordered Defendant to restore eight weeks of backup tapes at its own expense and to search them for the requested emails and invited Plaintiff to renew its motion if, after Defendant?s search was complete, it could show that ?further exploration? was necessary

Nature of Case: Insurance Litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Emails stored on backup tapes

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2014 WL 4745933 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 19, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Trial court considered parties? respective objections to clerk?s taxation of costs and further reduced Apple?s costs award; among other things, trial court rejected Apple?s argument that it was entitled to recover e-discovery costs incurred in processing all documents collected for review, whether or not they were all produced, and instead reduced award to approximate amount Apple spent on documents that were actually produced to Samsung; as Apple estimated it uploaded a total of 18,264,712 pages in the litigation, of which 2,944,467 pages were ultimately produced, court calculated that approximately 16.12% of Apple?s e-discovery costs were spent on documents produced to Samsung and awarded Apple $238,103 for e-discovery costs

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Stewart v. Continental Cas. Ins. Co., No. 12-005320KD-B, 2014 WL 12600282 (S.D. Ala. Jan. 1, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where responding party claimed that cloning and searching the hard drives from ?old computers? changed out in 2010 would cost more than $13,000 and submitted the affidavit of its CEO in support of its claim that the information was not reasonably accessible, the court reasoned it was ?not clear? that the ESI was not reasonably accessible or that the cost outweighed the ?importance and usefulness of the emails? and ordered the responding party to make arrangements for a forensic search of the CEO?s old hard drive which ?should yield representative information regarding the accessibility of the requested emails, the probability of locating the emails, the usefulness of the emails, the actual cost likely to be incurred for a search of all of the old computer hard drives at issue?; court also denied cost-shifting request ?at this time?

Nature of Case: Insurance

Electronic Data Involved: Emails on old computer hard drives

Bradfield v. Mid-Continent Cas. Co., No. 5:13-cf-222-Oc-10PRL, 2014 WL 4626864 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 15, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs? law firm experienced severe power surge that damaged server and firm engaged IT expert who made good faith effort to restore and obtain all data on firm?s computer system, including data responsive to defendant?s document requests, court found that plaintiffs had met their burden of showing that additional ESI was not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost, and further determined that circumstances did not warrant forensic examination of firm?s computer system as defendant failed to show good cause for the examination and could not demonstrate that the likely benefit of the discovery sought outweighed the significant burden and expense, considering the importance of the issues at stake and notwithstanding defendant?s offer to bear the financial cost of the forensic examination

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage dispute

EEOC v. SVT, LLC, No. 2:13-CV-245-RLM-PRC, 2014 WL 2177796 (N.D. Ind. May 22, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendant utilized third party?s hiring program to allow applicants to apply online, etc. and had limited access to the system?s data (i.e., limitations on the format and content of reports from the system), the court found that the data that could be regularly accessed by the defendant per its contract with the third party was accessible and subject to production and that data housed by the third party and not readily available to the defendant was ?not reasonably accessible . . . because of both undue burden and cost? and ordered that if the EEOC wanted the inaccessible data, it would have to pay for it

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI (Kronos)

Audio Visual Innovations, Inc. v. Burgdolf, No. 13-10372, 2014 WL 505565 (E. D. Mich. Feb. 3, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Forensic examination of defendants’ electronic devices was appropriate given nature of case and allegations against individual defendants; court identified particular devices to be examined and provided specific guidelines for the examination and review of ESI, but denied plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees since defendants’ objections were reasonable; court further ruled that costs associated with obtaining the information from the devices would be borne by plaintiff

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: ESI on defendant’s electronic devices

Klipsch Group, Inc. v. Big Box Store Ltd., No. 12 Civ. 6283 (VSB)(MHD), 2014 WL 904595 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 4, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to issue litigation hold and their belated oral instructions were inadequate both in form and content, court authorized plaintiff to undertake a forensic investigation into state of defendants’ computer systems for purpose of determining likelihood of document destruction, likely nature and volume of any such destroyed documents, whether some or all of those documents may be recovered, and the status of sales information on the computers; court deferred ruling on plaintiff’s motion for adverse inference instruction or cost-shifting pending results of investigation

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: E-mails and other ESI

Siltronic Corp. v. Employers Ins. Co. of Wausau, No. 3:11-cv-1493-ST, 2014 WL 991822 (D. Or. Mar. 13, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: After non-party produced responsive documents and sought reimbursement of $17,298 from defendant, court found that that hourly rate of $65 to $160 to search and copy documents was ?inherently unreasonable? and could not be justified, and invoices were vague and included entries for internal communications and meetings and time for senior scientists “to stand around the copier and copy documents”; court ruled that the defendant’s prior payment of $5,670 — about one-third of the total charge — was a reasonable amount, and that non-party must either absorb or charge the plaintiff for the remainder of its cost to comply with subpoena

Electronic Data Involved: Non-party documents relating to or arising out of specific invoices

SCR-Tech LLC v. Evonik Energy Servs. LLC, No. 08 CVS 16632 (N.C. Super Ct. Dec. 31, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff failed to ensure the preservation of information underlying a highly relevant report regarding the examination of certain Defendants? computers over which the court determined it had ?de facto control? (the underlying information, including copies of the images were in the possession of the third party investigator), the court indicated it was not necessary to make an express finding regarding when litigation was contemplated and reasoned that based on the circumstances, Defendants were ?entitled to the inference? that the information was negligently lost during a time when Plaintiff had the duty to preserve it. Thus, the court found Defendants had presented sufficient evidence of spoliation to trigger Plaintiff?s obligation to rebut it and that Plaintiff had not. As a sanction, the court ordered a permissive adverse inference. Regarding Plaintiff?s request to compel Defendant?s restoration of backup tapes, the court identified the state?s relevant three-part test and ordered that if Plaintiff wanted restoration, it would be required to pay half o f the estimated costs up front, with further allocation to occur following analysis of the results of the search.

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, backup tapes

Tag:Cost Shifting