1 / 19

Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC “Zubulake III:

Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC “Zubulake III:. 2003 Southern District of New York. Parties. Laura Zubulake She moves for an order compelling UBS to produce all remaining backup e-mails at its expense. UBS Warburg LLC

alexandra-mcfadden
Download Presentation

Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC “Zubulake III:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC“Zubulake III: 2003 Southern District of New York

  2. Parties • Laura Zubulake • She moves for an order compelling UBS to produce all remaining backup e-mails at its expense. • UBS Warburg LLC • The previous sampling that was looked at shows that the discovery costs should be shifted to Zubulake

  3. Facts • Zubulake earned approximate $650,000/year at UBS • She is suing for gender discrimination, failure to promote and retaliation. • She seeks electronic evidence stored on UBS back-up tapes

  4. Facts (cont’d) • Previous decision ordered the restoration of 5 back-up tapes. • The production of these backup tapes cost $19,003.43 • UBS now asks that the costs to produce the remaining be shifted to Zubulake

  5. Legal Framework • Rule 26(b)(2) • May subject the requesting party to protective under Rule 26(c) • Rule 26(c) • Protective orders including orders conditioning discovery on the requesting party’s payment of the costs of the discovery. • A court will order a cost-shifting protective order only upon a motion of the responding party to a discovery request, and for good cause shown. • Responding party has the burden of proof

  6. Analysis • Cost-shifting is appropriate when potentially inaccessible data is sought in discovery. • In order to determine if cost-shifting is appropriate the court applied the new 7-factor test in Zubulake I

  7. Factor One • The Extent to Which the Request is Specifically Tailored to Discover Relevant Information • There is no sign that the emails are going to reveal evidence related to gender.

  8. Factor Two • The Availability of Such Information from Other Sources • The contents of the emails are only available from the tapes. An email contains the precise words of the author and are a powerful form of proof at trial.

  9. Weighing Factors One and Two • Zubulake’s discovery request was narrowly tailored to discover relevant information. • Direct Evidence of discrimination may only be available through restoration. • Zubulake has demonstrated that there is probability that this evidence can be found in the email.

  10. Factor Three • The Total Cost of Production Compared to the Amount in Controversy • This case could potentially be a multi-million dollar case so $165,954.67 it would take to restore the documents is not significantly disproportionate. • This factor weighs against cost shifting.

  11. Factor Four • The Total Cost of Production Compared to the Resources Available to Each Party • UBS’s resources to pay for the restoration are much greater than Zubulakes. • She may be able to cover some of the cost of restoration. • This factor weighs against cost-shifting, but it does not rule it out.

  12. Factor Five • The Relative Ability of Each Party to Control Costs and Its Incentive to Do So • This factor is neutral. • A less-expensive vendor could be found • Zubulake is not able to cut back on her request because of the evidence found in the sample tapes.

  13. Factor Six • The Importance of the Issues at Stake in the Litigation • The litigation does not present a novel issue in discrimination. • This point is neutral.

  14. Factor Seven • The Relative Benefits to the Parties of Obtaining the Information • Zubulake stands to gain more than UBS. • Absent an order, UBS probably would never restore any of this data. • This factor weighs in favor of cost-shifting.

  15. Issue • Should the costs of retrieving inaccessible data be shifted to Zubulake? • Should the costs of review and production be shifted to Zubulake?

  16. Summary • Factors one through four weigh against cost shifting. • Factors five and six are neutral. • Factor seven favors cost-shifting. • Some cost-shifting is appropriate in this case. • There may be evidence that is only available on the tapes, but Zubulake has not shown that they contain indispensible evidence.

  17. Summary (cont’d) • The test shows that UBS should pay the majority share, therefore Zubulake must pay less than 50% • Zubulake will be required to pay 25% of the costs.

  18. Costs that are Affected • General Rule  Cost shifting only appropriate on the costs of restoration and searching. • The responding party should always bear the cost of reviewing and production for two reasons. • Exclusive ability to control the cost of reviewing the documents. • Once documents are ready to be reviewed, they are no longer inaccessible.

  19. Questions • How should companies begin to deal with back-up tapes now? Should they reduce the amount of back-up tapes they keep to the bare minimum required? • How can the court evaluate the importance of the evidence before its production? Should cost-shifting be debated after the production of documents?

More Related