Electronic Discovery as a Modern Convenience: A Burden or a Boon?

http://ow.ly/ag7bS

An article by Erin Hendrix posted on the eLL (e Lessons Learned) blog site.

This article discusses the case of Synopsys, Inc. v. Ricoh Co., 661 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Ricoh sought to avoid having to share costs for an eDiscovery review platform, arguing that it was not necessary to the case.  The plaintiff had agreed to share the costs of the production with Ricoh. In addition, the plaintiff also sought cost recovery for paper based documents that they had to incur for copying the documents.

The article states, "Parties in modern litigation cannot hope to avoid costs associated with production of discovery by labeling electronic services as “modern conveniences.”

Despite the court’s pronouncement, Ricoh was saved by the fact that Synopsys had agreed to share the cost of Stratify (The parties agreed to use Stratify platform as the means of production).

Synopsys also erred in the area of document production, but it was not as fortunate as Ricoh. The district court originally awarded Synopsys costs related to document copying costs. The issue was whether the costs claimed by Synopsys were actually associated with documents handed over to Ricoh. The court sided with other circuits which have held that “a list of costs and expenses must be adequately detailed, identifying the purpose of each expenditure.” Synopsys did not meet this burden. Many of its records were very vague, with some simply stating that the copies were for “document production.” The court vacated the district court’s award and remanded the issue. While the court did not ultimately come to a conclusion on this issue, it is clear that generic record keeping is not sufficient to uphold an award of costs under 28 U.S.C. §1920."