Plantronics, Inc. v. ALIPH, INC. et al

Filing 261

ORDER regarding supplemental information regarding gigabytes/pages after processing but before review (JUDGE BEELER, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 Northern District of California 10 San Francisco Division PLANTRONICS, INC., 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 Plaintiff, v. No. C 09-01714 WHA (LB) ORDER REGARDING TAXING OF COSTS 13 ALIPH, INC. et al, 14 15 16 Defendants. _____________________________________/ The court held a hearing on Aliph’s motion to tax costs and has a question for Aliph. According 17 to its written submissions, its in-house discovery costs resulted from Aliph’s use of discovery tools 18 to “scan, convert, and reproduce discovery documents” to comply with its discovery obligations. 19 Lee Decl., ¶ 25. It collected “[d]iscovery documents from over 40 directories and/or databases and 20 25 custodians in response to Plantronics’ discovery requests.” Id. It adds that the “costs of 21 reproduction, scanning and conversion of client documents were necessary for review and 22 production of documents” under Rule 26, Plantronics’ requests, and the parties’ agreement regarding 23 form of production. Id., ¶ 26. It produced 23.6 gigabytes of data and over 347,795 pages. Id., ¶26. 24 In its opposition, Plantronics notes that Aliph processed over 102 gigabytes of data, almost five 25 times more than the 23.6 gigabytes that Aliph actually produced. Opposition, ECF No. 38 at 28; 26 Bohrer Supp. Decl,, ECF No. 239, ¶ 4; Lee Decl., ECF No. 227-1, ¶ 26. 27 28 The court assumes from all of this that the ESI processing reflected in Aliph’s chart in its motion may have resulted in processed gigabytes (essentially, a universe of potentially producible ORDER (C 09-01714 WHA (LB)) 1 documents) that exceeded the 23.6 gigabytes/347,795 pages produced but was smaller than the 102 2 gigabytes processed (due to de-duping and other processing-related reasons). Put another way, 3 Aliph would have reviewed that intermediate processed amount, eliminated information based on 4 relevance, privilege, or other reasons, and produced what was discoverable (the 23.6 gigabytes and 5 347,795 pages). 6 If this is true, the court invites Aliph to file a one-page document with these intermediate 7 numbers (gigabytes/pages reviewed) with a short supporting declaration by Monday, October 22, 8 2012, at 1 p.m. Aliph need not file that clarification but should notify the court that it chooses not to 9 by the same deadline. (Either outcome is fine.) If Aliph files the document with the additional information, Plantronics may respond by 5 p.m. (If this is an unreasonable schedule, the parties may 11 let the court know, but the information that the court seeks is discrete and non-burdensome.) 12 For the Northern District of California UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 21, 2012 14 _______________________________ LAUREL BEELER United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER (C 09-01714 WHA (LB)) 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?