• 

Costs Shifting In Discovery.

Costs Shifting in Discovery

Cost-shifting is a legal mechanism where the court orders the party requesting discovery to bear some or all costs of producing information, especially when discovery is unusually expensive or burdensome. This concept is particularly relevant in e-discovery, where electronic data volumes can be enormous.

1. Legal Basis

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP)

Rule 26(b)(1): Discovery must be proportional to the needs of the case.

Rule 26(c): Courts may issue protective orders limiting discovery or shifting costs.

Rule 34(a-b): Production of ESI can include allocation of production costs if extraction is expensive.

Rationale

Prevents disproportionate burden on producing parties.

Encourages parties to narrow discovery requests.

Ensures fairness in litigation when one party has greater resources or when information is marginally relevant.

2. Factors Courts Consider for Cost-Shifting

Courts often rely on the Zubulake factors from Zubulake v. UBS Warburg (2003–2004):

Specificity of the discovery request.

Availability of information from other sources.

Total cost of production relative to the amount in controversy.

Total cost relative to each party’s resources.

Parties’ relative ability to control costs.

Importance of the issues at stake.

Relative benefits to the parties of obtaining the information.

Rule of Thumb: If production is expensive and minimally relevant, the requesting party may bear the cost.

3. Common Scenarios for Cost-Shifting

Legacy or Obsolete Systems: Recovery from old hardware/software.

Large Volumes of ESI: Terabytes of emails, logs, or databases.

Nonstandard Formats: Proprietary formats requiring conversion or reconstruction.

Low Relevance vs. High Cost: Information has marginal relevance relative to production expense.

4. Case Laws on Cost-Shifting

a. Zubulake v. UBS Warburg (2003-2004, SDNY)

Issue: Plaintiff requested emails on backup tapes; defendant argued cost was excessive.

Holding: Court established seven-factor test for cost-shifting.

Significance: Foundation for modern e-discovery cost allocation.

b. Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Securities (2004, SDNY)

Issue: Defendant resisted email production due to cost.

Holding: Court applied Zubulake factors and required cost-sharing.

Significance: Reinforced proportionality and cost allocation.

c. Rowe Entertainment, Inc. v. William Morris Agency, Inc. (2007, SDNY)

Issue: Plaintiff requested all emails over many years.

Holding: Court allowed partial cost-shifting, limiting discovery to relevant materials.

Significance: Excessive or broad requests can trigger cost allocation.

d. Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc. (2008, D. Md.)

Issue: Forensic review of digital logs was costly.

Holding: Court allowed targeted discovery and partial cost-shifting.

Significance: Cost allocation must consider proportionality and relevance.

e. Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp. (2006, SD Cal.)

Issue: Massive e-discovery requests in complex patent litigation.

Holding: Court approved cost-sharing for voluminous ESI production.

Significance: High-volume electronic production justifies cost-shifting.

f. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. (2012, ND Cal.)

Issue: Discovery for large technical document sets.

Holding: Court allowed cost-shifting for expensive extraction of ESI, especially legacy or technical data.

Significance: Technology-driven discovery expenses can be allocated.

g. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders (1978, US Supreme Court)

Issue: Discovery imposed unreasonable expense on producing party.

Holding: Established principle that requesting party may bear costs when discovery is burdensome.

Significance: Early foundation for fairness in cost allocation.

5. Methods of Cost-Shifting

Direct Payment – Requesting party pays part or all production costs.

Tiered Allocation – Costs divided by data type or effort required.

Alternative Formats – Producing less costly formats (e.g., PDFs instead of native files).

Sampling – Produce a representative sample instead of the full dataset.

6. Practical Guidance

For Requesting Parties:

Narrow requests to relevant data.

Explore alternative sources.

Be ready to bear some costs for expensive or voluminous production.

For Producing Parties:

Document costs and burden of production.

Propose alternative production formats.

Consider protective orders or proportionality objections.

7. Summary Table of Key Cases

✅ Key Takeaways

Cost-shifting ensures fairness when discovery is expensive or burdensome.

Courts rely on Zubulake factors for proportional allocation.

High-volume or complex e-discovery often triggers cost-shifting.

Early planning and communication can reduce disputes and unnecessary expense.

RELATED Blog

Corporate Law at Afghanistan

Corporate Law at Albania

Corporate Law at Algeria

Corporate Law at American Samoa (US)

Corporate Law at Bangladesh

Corporate Law at Andorra

Corporate Law at Angola

Corporate Law at Antigua and Barbuda

Corporate Law at Anguilla (BOT)

Corporate Law at Argentina