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)

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