Courts Narrowing E-Discovery Rather Than Shifting Costs
Certain decisions from the past year suggest that New York courts addressing requests to shift costs in connection with e-discovery are more inclined to exercise their discretion under Article 31 of the CPLR to limit the scope of the requested e-discovery than they are to shift the costs of such discovery to the requesting party.
February 04, 2022 at 02:20 PM
6 minute read
Certain decisions from the past year suggest that New York courts addressing requests to shift costs in connection with e-discovery are more inclined to exercise their discretion under Article 31 of the CPLR to limit the scope of the requested e-discovery than they are to shift the costs of such discovery to the requesting party.
Historically, New York courts have held that the party requesting discovery, as opposed to the producing party, should incur the costs associated with the production of the requested discovery material. See Schroeder v. Centro Pariso Tropical, 233 A.D.2d 314 (2d Dep't 1996); Rubin v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, 190 A.D.2d 661 (2d Dep't 1993).
In 2012, however, the First Department, following the practice in the federal courts, held that in the first instance, a producing party, not a requesting party, should bear the cost of production of both electronically stored information (ESI) and physical documents, subject to the exercise of discretion by the IAS court on a proper motion. See U.S. Bank N.A. v. GreenPoint Mtge. Funding, 94 A.D.3d 58 (1st Dep't 2012). The GreenPoint court further held that IAS courts should consider the standards articulated in the seminal case of Zubulake v. USB Warburg, 217 F.R.D 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) when exercising such discretion, including the (1) extent to which the discovery request is specifically tailored to discover relevant information; (2) availability of such information from any other sources; (3) total cost of production, compared to the amount in controversy; (4) total cost of production, compared to the resources available to each party; (5) relative ability of each party to control costs and its incentive to do so; (6) importance of the issues at stake in the litigation; and (7) relative benefits to the parties of obtaining the information. These factors, the GreenPoint court held, are not a checklist, but rather should be used "as a guide to the exercise of … discretion in determining whether or not the request constitutes an undue burden or expense on the responding party."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAbsent Explicit Agreement, Court Rejects Unilateral Responsiveness Redaction of Text Messages
10 minute readEstablishing New Test for Cost-Shifting, Court Allocates Costs for Data Security in Discovery
9 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1DC Lawsuits Seek to Prevent Mass Firings and Public Naming of FBI Agents
- 2Growth of California Firms Exceeded Expectations, Survey of Managing Partners Says
- 3Blank Rome Adds Life Sciences Trio From Reed Smith
- 4Divided State Supreme Court Clears the Way for Child Sexual Abuse Cases Against Church, Schools
- 5From Hospital Bed to Legal Insights: Lessons in Life, Law, and Lawyering
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250