This week, I briefly continue my discussion of the Zubulake case, one of the most significant electronic discovery case of the 2000s.
Here's a brief recap: Laura Zubulake sued her employer (UBS) on grounds of gender discrimination. She asked for UBS emails relevant to her case. UBS said that emails relevant to the case were available only on back-up tapes, and claimed that it would be expensive to recover these emails. Judge Scheindlin, the federal court judge in the case, instructed UBS to restore a sample of back-up tapes, so that the judge could make a decision on whether to shift the costs from the defendants (UBS) to the plaintiff (Zubulake).
The judge's third decision in the case (known as Zubulake III) was released in July 2003, a couple of months after her first decision.
She applied her cost-shifting analysis and its seven-factor test (discussed in last week's post here), and decided that the plaintiff (Zubulake) would pay 25% of the costs of restoring the back-up tapes, while the defendant (UBS) would pay 75%.
However, it is important to remember that the restoration costs were much smaller than the costs of reviewing the emails to see what was there: UBS spent a lot of money to pay attorneys to look over the documents restored from the back-up tapes. The judge said that because UBS had control over these costs, it was responsible for all of them.
Zubulake III is interesting because the judge decided to shift some of the restoration costs to the plaintiff, but not the costs of reviewing the restored emails.
Next week, I'll continue my discussion of the case by looking at Zubulake IV, and hopefully, the last in the series, Zubulake V!
(Zubulake III is cited as: Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, 216 F.R.D. 280 (S.D.N.Y. 2003))
Showing posts with label cost-shifting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cost-shifting. Show all posts
Monday, May 3, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
E-Discovery Basics: Zubulake Part Two
Last week, I started to talk about one of the most important and influential electronic discovery cases of the past decade: Zubulake v. UBS Warburg. I'll pick up my discussion of this 2003 case where I left off...
Laura Zubulake had sued UBS, her employer, claiming gender discrimination. She asked UBS for emails relevant to her case. UBS said it did not have these emails, and that the costs of restoring its back-up tapes to recover the Zubulake emails would be very high (in the hundreds of thousands of dollars). UBS asked the court to consider first whether UBS had to give the emails to Zubulake, and if so, who had to pay the costs of getting the emails from storage on the back-up tapes.
Judge Shira Scheindlin looked to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allowed Zubulake to ask UBS for emails related to her case. The Rules presumed that UBS would have to pay the cost of recovering the emails from back-up tapes, but also gave the court the discretion to shift some or all the costs to the party asking for the emails (in this case, Zubulake).
This is the point where the case becomes very interesting to the electronic discovery world. Judge Scheindlin pointed out that in many cases involving restoring emails from a back-up tape, the party that is supposed to produce the emails argued that it would be far too expensive to recover the emails. In other words, why ask someone to pay $100,000 to find emails relevant to a case, when the case involves only $10,000? This was the argument made by many companies when they were asked for emails.
Judge Scheindlin noted that many courts had automatically assumed that electronic evidence meant much higher costs, and would deny email requests. This often ended the case, as a plaintiff couldn't get access to necessary evidence. Judge Scheindlin recognized that electronic data could be searched much more cheaply than paper documents could be read and reviewed - an office computer using a search engine could find something in seconds.
The judge created a three-step analysis:
First, how is the data stored? Is it accessible, or inaccessible?
The judge said 'accessible data' means data that is readily usable, and doesn't have to be restored. Examples include data stored on hard drives, CDs, DVDs, etc.
'Inaccessible data' means data that is on backup tapes, or has been erased or damaged. This data is inaccessible because something has to be done to it before it can be accessed. That "something" will cost time and money.
When faced with inaccessible data, the judge said that courts should consider shifting the restoration and production costs to the party asking for the data.
Second, in order to analyze whether to shift costs, the court needs to know what is in the inaccessible data. The judge suggested restoring a small sample of the requested inaccessible data to find out what is there.
Third, the judge developed a seven-step cost-shifting analysis:
1. How specifically is the request tailored to find relevant information? In other words, has the request been written so that it will discover documents relevant to the case?
2. Is this information already available from other sources?
3. What's the total cost of production, compared to the amount of the case?
4. What's the total cost of production, compared to each party's resources? (Does one party have deep pockets?)
5. Can each party control costs, and does each one want to?
6. How important are the issues at stake in the case?
7. What are the benefits to the parties of restoring the data?
The judge stressed that these seven factors are not a check-list and they don't have equal weight with each other. The first factors on the list are the most important, and they are less important as the list goes down.
The judge summarized the central questions of the seven-factor cost-shifting test as: 'does the request impose an "undue burden or expense" on the responding party?' and "how important is the sought-after evidence in comparison to the cost of production?"
In other words, "is it an undue expense?" and "is the data important enough to be worth the cost?"
Judge Scheindlin decided that UBS must produce accessible data, as UBS could do this quickly and cheaply.
The judge also decided that UBS must restore responsive emails from five back-up tapes so that the court could look at the data and begin its cost-shifting analysis.
And so ended the first Zubulake decision (known as Zubulake I). The story continues in Zubulake III! (The Zubulake II decision didn't address anything related to electronic discovery, so I won't talk about it.)
Laura Zubulake had sued UBS, her employer, claiming gender discrimination. She asked UBS for emails relevant to her case. UBS said it did not have these emails, and that the costs of restoring its back-up tapes to recover the Zubulake emails would be very high (in the hundreds of thousands of dollars). UBS asked the court to consider first whether UBS had to give the emails to Zubulake, and if so, who had to pay the costs of getting the emails from storage on the back-up tapes.
Judge Shira Scheindlin looked to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allowed Zubulake to ask UBS for emails related to her case. The Rules presumed that UBS would have to pay the cost of recovering the emails from back-up tapes, but also gave the court the discretion to shift some or all the costs to the party asking for the emails (in this case, Zubulake).
This is the point where the case becomes very interesting to the electronic discovery world. Judge Scheindlin pointed out that in many cases involving restoring emails from a back-up tape, the party that is supposed to produce the emails argued that it would be far too expensive to recover the emails. In other words, why ask someone to pay $100,000 to find emails relevant to a case, when the case involves only $10,000? This was the argument made by many companies when they were asked for emails.
Judge Scheindlin noted that many courts had automatically assumed that electronic evidence meant much higher costs, and would deny email requests. This often ended the case, as a plaintiff couldn't get access to necessary evidence. Judge Scheindlin recognized that electronic data could be searched much more cheaply than paper documents could be read and reviewed - an office computer using a search engine could find something in seconds.
The judge created a three-step analysis:
First, how is the data stored? Is it accessible, or inaccessible?
The judge said 'accessible data' means data that is readily usable, and doesn't have to be restored. Examples include data stored on hard drives, CDs, DVDs, etc.
'Inaccessible data' means data that is on backup tapes, or has been erased or damaged. This data is inaccessible because something has to be done to it before it can be accessed. That "something" will cost time and money.
When faced with inaccessible data, the judge said that courts should consider shifting the restoration and production costs to the party asking for the data.
Second, in order to analyze whether to shift costs, the court needs to know what is in the inaccessible data. The judge suggested restoring a small sample of the requested inaccessible data to find out what is there.
Third, the judge developed a seven-step cost-shifting analysis:
1. How specifically is the request tailored to find relevant information? In other words, has the request been written so that it will discover documents relevant to the case?
2. Is this information already available from other sources?
3. What's the total cost of production, compared to the amount of the case?
4. What's the total cost of production, compared to each party's resources? (Does one party have deep pockets?)
5. Can each party control costs, and does each one want to?
6. How important are the issues at stake in the case?
7. What are the benefits to the parties of restoring the data?
The judge stressed that these seven factors are not a check-list and they don't have equal weight with each other. The first factors on the list are the most important, and they are less important as the list goes down.
The judge summarized the central questions of the seven-factor cost-shifting test as: 'does the request impose an "undue burden or expense" on the responding party?' and "how important is the sought-after evidence in comparison to the cost of production?"
In other words, "is it an undue expense?" and "is the data important enough to be worth the cost?"
Judge Scheindlin decided that UBS must produce accessible data, as UBS could do this quickly and cheaply.
The judge also decided that UBS must restore responsive emails from five back-up tapes so that the court could look at the data and begin its cost-shifting analysis.
And so ended the first Zubulake decision (known as Zubulake I). The story continues in Zubulake III! (The Zubulake II decision didn't address anything related to electronic discovery, so I won't talk about it.)
Monday, April 19, 2010
E-Discovery Basics, Part Two - Introduction to Zubulake
This post is the next installment in my survey of e-discovery basic principles.
One of the most important, and consequential, series of court decisions in the area of electronic discovery is the Zubulake v. UBS Warburg case, normally referred to simply as "Zubulake".
Zubulake is important because it deals with the question of who is responsible for paying the costs of e-discovery; the plaintiff or the defendant?
E-discovery can be very expensive. It is especially expensive when one party asks the other to hand over data, and that data is not easily accessible. For example, the data may exist only on back-up tapes, which forces the producing party to find the correct back-up tape, restore it so that the data is accessible, find the data, check to make sure the data hasn't become corrupted, make a copy of the data somewhere else, and only then begin to look at the data to see what is actually there, and what it says. All of this takes time and money, and diverts the producing party's resources away from other tasks (such as running a business). The question is: who should pay for this?
Zubulake is a series of five decisions released from 2003 through 2004 by Judge Shira Scheindlin of the U.S. District Court (a federal court) for the Southern District of New York.
Laura Zubulake sued her employer, claiming gender discrimination. She asked UBS for any emails or other documents discussing her case. UBS turned over a relatively small number of emails, while Zubulake herself produced almost five times as much email information. UBS did not search its back-up tapes or its other archives for emails related to the Zubulake matter, saying it would be a burden, and it would be expensive. UBS asked the court to shift the costs to Zubulake (and make her pay for retrieving the emails from the UBS archive).
The court considered the question of whether UBS should be required to produce relevant emails. If so, who should pay for this? Should the cost be shifted from one party to the other?
The exciting continuation of this case will be the next intallment of this blog. Stay tuned!
(For the curious, the Zubulake case is cited as Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, 217 F.R.D. 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).)
One of the most important, and consequential, series of court decisions in the area of electronic discovery is the Zubulake v. UBS Warburg case, normally referred to simply as "Zubulake".
Zubulake is important because it deals with the question of who is responsible for paying the costs of e-discovery; the plaintiff or the defendant?
E-discovery can be very expensive. It is especially expensive when one party asks the other to hand over data, and that data is not easily accessible. For example, the data may exist only on back-up tapes, which forces the producing party to find the correct back-up tape, restore it so that the data is accessible, find the data, check to make sure the data hasn't become corrupted, make a copy of the data somewhere else, and only then begin to look at the data to see what is actually there, and what it says. All of this takes time and money, and diverts the producing party's resources away from other tasks (such as running a business). The question is: who should pay for this?
Zubulake is a series of five decisions released from 2003 through 2004 by Judge Shira Scheindlin of the U.S. District Court (a federal court) for the Southern District of New York.
Laura Zubulake sued her employer, claiming gender discrimination. She asked UBS for any emails or other documents discussing her case. UBS turned over a relatively small number of emails, while Zubulake herself produced almost five times as much email information. UBS did not search its back-up tapes or its other archives for emails related to the Zubulake matter, saying it would be a burden, and it would be expensive. UBS asked the court to shift the costs to Zubulake (and make her pay for retrieving the emails from the UBS archive).
The court considered the question of whether UBS should be required to produce relevant emails. If so, who should pay for this? Should the cost be shifted from one party to the other?
The exciting continuation of this case will be the next intallment of this blog. Stay tuned!
(For the curious, the Zubulake case is cited as Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, 217 F.R.D. 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
