CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY vs. Civil No. 11-CV-0788-GPC (WVG) February 6, 2013 et al
KE L L YCA P I T A L Court already ruled on many of objections to RFPs There are five (5)dealt with here
KE L L YCA P I T A L objects to these five requests because the cost compared to the claim renders production unduly burdensome fig 1 object fig 2 five fig 3 requests fig 4 burden
219 GB = $120K index filter process attorney review $120,000 to process the data requested. NOT including attorney review and production management $120,000 size of plaintiff's claim
Court lays out the test, from Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(C) comparing burden or cost of discovery to the value of the discovery
once the resisting party meets its burden that discovery should not be permitted burden shifts to requesting party to show that discovery is relevant and necessary
relevant and necessary editor's note: the amount in controversy was $120k. The estimated cost of a piece of this ESI project was $120k. 'Nuff said. The problem, and the reason that I am not going to continue this drawing, is that the judge relied upon OpenTV which gave too much weight to element four of the Zublake test (cost). As such, while the result in the instant case is proper, it is not worth explaining how the result was rendered. OpenTV v. Liberate Techs., 219 F.R.D. 474 (N.D. Cal. 2003) 1 1 That was ten years ago, on the heels of Zubulake, so it is no wonder that the court got it wrong, but today we know better.