e-Discovery Docket Sheet

The plaintiffs filed a class action antitrust lawsuit alleging price-fixing in violation of various federal statutes. The plaintiffs offered a proposed scheduling order, requesting the defendants produce all relevant data in an electronic format and provide technical assistance for understanding the data. The defendants objected, arguing the proposed order was excessively burdensome and did not place a similar burden on the plaintiffs. The court granted the plaintiffs' proposed scheduling order in part, finding that both parties' data must be produced electronically “to the extent reasonably feasible.” However, the court did not require the defendants to provide technical assistance to the plaintiffs, stating “[u]nless otherwise agreed upon, interpretations of data produced through discovery should be obtained through traditional discovery outlets and through the hiring of expert witnesses.” In re Plastics Additives Antitrust Litig., 2004 WL 2743591 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2004).

In a breach-of-contract action, the defendants subpoenaed electronic data from a nonparty. The nonparty responded by producing 30,000 e-mails and attachments, 70 megabytes of e-mail data, 8000 spreadsheets and hard-copy documents. The nonparty requested legal fees and costs from the defendants for collecting, reviewing and producing this data based on a state statute requiring a party to reimburse a nonparty for reasonable production costs. The nonparty argued the costs and attorneys' fees were an “undue burden or expense” suffered as a result of responding to the defendants' subpoena. The trial court awarded the nonparty production costs but denied attorneys' fees, on the grounds that the statute excluded attorney-fee awards. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed and held that the statute did not include attorney's fees as part of production costs and that the attorneys' fees were not an “undue burden or expense,” absent a showing that the requesting party did not take “reasonable steps” to limit the scope of discovery. BASF Fina Petrochemicals Ltd. Partnership v. H.B. Zachry Co., 2004 WL 2612835 (Tex. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2004).

In an employment suit, the defendants referenced an entry the plaintiff allegedly made in a ledger on the defendants' computer system shortly before they fired the plaintiff. The plaintiff requested that the defendants produce a document showing the “true date when the entry was actually entered into the computer system.” The court declined to order the production but stated the plaintiff could, at the plaintiff's expense, request the court to order the defendants to permit the plaintiff's computer-forensic expert to examine the computer. Laurin v. Pokoik, 2004 WL 2724767 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2004).

In a discovery dispute relating to a preliminary investigation of gas-price increases, the court ordered the plaintiff to restore, review and produce responsive e-mail spanning 15 months. The plaintiff brought a motion for costs, stating it was not a named party to the investigation. Denying the request, the administrative law judge determined the party was not “an uninvolved third party” and thus should bear production costs. Several months later, the judge held another discovery hearing to implement a faster e-mail review process and amended the early order to expedite the review process. The plaintiff then filed the instant action in district court, challenging the discovery orders relating to the underlying investigation and claiming “irreparable injury” as it had already spent $1.4 million trying to comply with the discovery orders. The court refused to exercise its jurisdiction and declared the plaintiff's litigation costs did not demonstrate “irreparable injury.” The court dismissed the action but declared the plaintiff could pursue other remedies if warranted. Sempra Energy Trading Corp. v. Brown, 2004 WL 2714404 (N.D.Cal. Nov. 30, 2004).

Parties Required To Produce Documents
In Electronic Format

The plaintiffs filed a class action antitrust lawsuit alleging price-fixing in violation of various federal statutes. The plaintiffs offered a proposed scheduling order, requesting the defendants produce all relevant data in an electronic format and provide technical assistance for understanding the data. The defendants objected, arguing the proposed order was excessively burdensome and did not place a similar burden on the plaintiffs. The court granted the plaintiffs' proposed scheduling order in part, finding that both parties' data must be produced electronically “to the extent reasonably feasible.” However, the court did not require the defendants to provide technical assistance to the plaintiffs, stating “[u]nless otherwise agreed upon, interpretations of data produced through discovery should be obtained through traditional discovery outlets and through the hiring of expert witnesses.” In re Plastics Additives Antitrust Litig., 2004 WL 2743591 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2004).

In a breach-of-contract action, the defendants subpoenaed electronic data from a nonparty. The nonparty responded by producing 30,000 e-mails and attachments, 70 megabytes of e-mail data, 8000 spreadsheets and hard-copy documents. The nonparty requested legal fees and costs from the defendants for collecting, reviewing and producing this data based on a state statute requiring a party to reimburse a nonparty for reasonable production costs. The nonparty argued the costs and attorneys' fees were an “undue burden or expense” suffered as a result of responding to the defendants' subpoena. The trial court awarded the nonparty production costs but denied attorneys' fees, on the grounds that the statute excluded attorney-fee awards. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed and held that the statute did not include attorney's fees as part of production costs and that the attorneys' fees were not an “undue burden or expense,” absent a showing that the requesting party did not take “reasonable steps” to limit the scope of discovery. BASF Fina Petrochemicals Ltd. Partnership v. H.B. Zachry Co., 2004 WL 2612835 (Tex. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2004).

In an employment suit, the defendants referenced an entry the plaintiff allegedly made in a ledger on the defendants' computer system shortly before they fired the plaintiff. The plaintiff requested that the defendants produce a document showing the “true date when the entry was actually entered into the computer system.” The court declined to order the production but stated the plaintiff could, at the plaintiff's expense, request the court to order the defendants to permit the plaintiff's computer-forensic expert to examine the computer. Laurin v. Pokoik, 2004 WL 2724767 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2004).

In a discovery dispute relating to a preliminary investigation of gas-price increases, the court ordered the plaintiff to restore, review and produce responsive e-mail spanning 15 months. The plaintiff brought a motion for costs, stating it was not a named party to the investigation. Denying the request, the administrative law judge determined the party was not “an uninvolved third party” and thus should bear production costs. Several months later, the judge held another discovery hearing to implement a faster e-mail review process and amended the early order to expedite the review process. The plaintiff then filed the instant action in district court, challenging the discovery orders relating to the underlying investigation and claiming “irreparable injury” as it had already spent $1.4 million trying to comply with the discovery orders. The court refused to exercise its jurisdiction and declared the plaintiff's litigation costs did not demonstrate “irreparable injury.” The court dismissed the action but declared the plaintiff could pursue other remedies if warranted. Sempra Energy Trading Corp. v. Brown, 2004 WL 2714404 (N.D.Cal. Nov. 30, 2004).