View by Topic
Cost Allocation > Factors
United States Bankruptcy Trustee v. Dorel Industries, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78096 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2010).
The expense of compiling a database of responsive email was a recoverable cost for a successful party. The court found that the expense fell "within the category of costs recoverable for 'fees and disbursements for printing' under" 28 U.S.C. § 1920(3).
The expense of compiling a database of responsive email was a recoverable cost for a successful party. The court found that the expense fell "within the category of costs recoverable for 'fees and disbursements for printing' under" 28 U.S.C. § 1920(3).
Diaz v. AIG Marketing, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62092 (S.D. Fla. June 1, 2010).
Although the restoration and searching of otherwise inaccessible e-mail records may have been necessary for use in the case, the court would not tax costs in favor of the prevailing party. The costs were listed or reasonably related to any cost listed under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 for taxation of costs.
Although the restoration and searching of otherwise inaccessible e-mail records may have been necessary for use in the case, the court would not tax costs in favor of the prevailing party. The costs were listed or reasonably related to any cost listed under 28 U.S.C. § 1920 for taxation of costs.
Loomis v. Exelon Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24405 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 11, 2010).
The application of successful defendants for reimbursement of electronic discovery costs was denied because defendants did not describe the costs in sufficient detail to allow the court to determine whether the costs were reasonable and necessary.
The application of successful defendants for reimbursement of electronic discovery costs was denied because defendants did not describe the costs in sufficient detail to allow the court to determine whether the costs were reasonable and necessary.
CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., "CBT II", 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121188 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 30, 2009).
An unsuccessful plaintiff was ordered to pay a defendant's costs of $243,453.02 in fees for an e-discovery vendor that assisted in the defendant's production of electronically stored information. The court held such costs should be recovered as taxable costs under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1920 because production of electronic files was "the 21st Century equivalent of making copies."
An unsuccessful plaintiff was ordered to pay a defendant's costs of $243,453.02 in fees for an e-discovery vendor that assisted in the defendant's production of electronically stored information. The court held such costs should be recovered as taxable costs under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1920 because production of electronic files was "the 21st Century equivalent of making copies."
Matter of Klein v. Persaud, 2009 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3423 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Dec. 21, 2009).
Although a non-party bank was entitled to reimbursement of its costs for providing electronic discovery, it could recover only at the minimum wage rate for time spent rather than at its "adhesion contract" rate for customer services. Also, the bank was not entitled to copy charges for documents that were produced electronically.
Although a non-party bank was entitled to reimbursement of its costs for providing electronic discovery, it could recover only at the minimum wage rate for time spent rather than at its "adhesion contract" rate for customer services. Also, the bank was not entitled to copy charges for documents that were produced electronically.
Computer Cache Coherency Corp. v. Intel Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122596 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2009).
Costs including Bates numbering and electronic scanning but not metadata extraction and OCR expenses were taxable by the Clerk and reimbursed to the winning party.
Costs including Bates numbering and electronic scanning but not metadata extraction and OCR expenses were taxable by the Clerk and reimbursed to the winning party.
Lake Wright Hospitality, LLC v. Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122113 (E.D. Va. Oct. 23, 2009).
A billing rate of $175 per hour for counsel's litigation support analyst was considered reasonable by the court. A rate "slightly below" a junior associate's rate rather than a typical data administrator's cost of $46 to $66 per hour was appropriate because litigation technology support required considerable specialized knowledge.
A billing rate of $175 per hour for counsel's litigation support analyst was considered reasonable by the court. A rate "slightly below" a junior associate's rate rather than a typical data administrator's cost of $46 to $66 per hour was appropriate because litigation technology support required considerable specialized knowledge.
Sensormatic Electronics Corp. v. Tag Co. US, LLC, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92217 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 19, 2009).
Although plaintiff was the prevailing party in a patent infringement and false advertisement action, the court denied plaintiff's request for an award of its costs for a forensic examination of computers owned by defendants. Plaintiff had agreed to pay for the forensic examination and an award of costs to the prevailing party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 was discretionary rather than mandatory.
Although plaintiff was the prevailing party in a patent infringement and false advertisement action, the court denied plaintiff's request for an award of its costs for a forensic examination of computers owned by defendants. Plaintiff had agreed to pay for the forensic examination and an award of costs to the prevailing party under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 was discretionary rather than mandatory.
Spieker v. Quest Cherokee, LLC, “Spieker II”, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62073 (D. Kan. July 21, 2009).
The court rejected defendant's argument that the cost of production of electronically stored information would be even greater if defendant used its inexperienced in-house information technology staff rather than an outside vendor to conduct production. According to the court, no court had held that a party was excused from discovery because its staff had not previously searched for or produced discovery materials.
The court rejected defendant's argument that the cost of production of electronically stored information would be even greater if defendant used its inexperienced in-house information technology staff rather than an outside vendor to conduct production. According to the court, no court had held that a party was excused from discovery because its staff had not previously searched for or produced discovery materials.
Omnicare, Inc. v. Mariner Health Care Mgmt. Co., 2009 Del. Ch. LEXIS 95 (Del. Ch. May 29, 2009).
A Delaware court declined to consider cost-sharing for production of electronically stored information on backup tapes until after production from "active stores" indicated that the backup tapes were likely to contain relevant data.
A Delaware court declined to consider cost-sharing for production of electronically stored information on backup tapes until after production from "active stores" indicated that the backup tapes were likely to contain relevant data.
Robert v. Board of County Commissioners of Brown County, Kansas, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40867 (D. Kan. May 14, 2009).
Defendants who offered to make their computers available to plaintiff's computer forensics expert to search for a missing email between a defendant and counsel were not required to pay for the costs of the search, estimated at $1500 to $2500 per computer, despite plaintiff's inability to pay the cost.
Defendants who offered to make their computers available to plaintiff's computer forensics expert to search for a missing email between a defendant and counsel were not required to pay for the costs of the search, estimated at $1500 to $2500 per computer, despite plaintiff's inability to pay the cost.
Fells v. Virginia Department of Transportation, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30888 (E.D. Va. Mar. 25, 2009).
Costs of creating electronically searchable documents that went beyond reproducing paper documents in electronic form were not included in the exemplification and copying expenses that could be recovered by the prevailing party under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1920(4).
Costs of creating electronically searchable documents that went beyond reproducing paper documents in electronic form were not included in the exemplification and copying expenses that could be recovered by the prevailing party under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1920(4).
T.A. Ahern Contractors Corp. v. Dormitory Authority of N.Y., 2009 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 662 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 19, 2009).
Plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling defendant to produce employee email was denied pending plaintiff’s agreement that it would pay for the cost of production. Federal cost-shifting precedents such as Zubulake were not applicable in New York state courts where the traditional rule was that the requesting party would pay for production.
Plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling defendant to produce employee email was denied pending plaintiff’s agreement that it would pay for the cost of production. Federal cost-shifting precedents such as Zubulake were not applicable in New York state courts where the traditional rule was that the requesting party would pay for production.
Beckford v. Department of Corrections, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80956 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 3, 2009).
Successful plaintiffs were entitled to reimbursement of their electronic discovery expert's fee because "the expert's services were valuable to the case's prosecution."
Successful plaintiffs were entitled to reimbursement of their electronic discovery expert's fee because "the expert's services were valuable to the case's prosecution."
Gray & Assoc., LLC v. Speltz & Weis LLC, 2009 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 332 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Feb. 2, 2009).
Plaintiff was ordered to post a $20,000 bond as security for costs because electronic discovery contemplated by the parties was “very expensive” and the prevailing party might be able to recover some or all of its computer forensic fees.
Plaintiff was ordered to post a $20,000 bond as security for costs because electronic discovery contemplated by the parties was “very expensive” and the prevailing party might be able to recover some or all of its computer forensic fees.
Tierno v. Rite Aid Corp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58748 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2008).
The seven-factor Zubulake test for determining whether the responding party should have to pay all of the costs of responding to discovery requests was applicable only to electronic discovery, and a magistrate judge should not have applied the test to the discovery of paper documents.
The seven-factor Zubulake test for determining whether the responding party should have to pay all of the costs of responding to discovery requests was applicable only to electronic discovery, and a magistrate judge should not have applied the test to the discovery of paper documents.
Cason-Merenda v. Detroit Medical Center, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51962 (E.D. Mich. Jul. 7, 2008).
A motion for an order requiring plaintiff to pay half of a defendant’s third party vendor electronic discovery costs was denied. Defendant’s cost-sharing motion was filed after defendant had incurred the costs, and a sensible reading of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B) required that a party must seek protection from undue expense before incurring the expense.
A motion for an order requiring plaintiff to pay half of a defendant’s third party vendor electronic discovery costs was denied. Defendant’s cost-sharing motion was filed after defendant had incurred the costs, and a sensible reading of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B) required that a party must seek protection from undue expense before incurring the expense.
Mikron Indus. v. Hurd Windows & Doors, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35166 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 21, 2008).
Defendants’ request to have plaintiff pay defendants’ costs of searching for data was denied because defendants had failed to provide a detailed explanation of their difficulties in providing electronically stored information. Such a detailed explanation was required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)’s meet and confer requirement and Rule 26(b)(2)’s requirement to show that additional sources of data were not reasonably accessible.
Defendants’ request to have plaintiff pay defendants’ costs of searching for data was denied because defendants had failed to provide a detailed explanation of their difficulties in providing electronically stored information. Such a detailed explanation was required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)’s meet and confer requirement and Rule 26(b)(2)’s requirement to show that additional sources of data were not reasonably accessible.
Davis v. City of Springfield, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22110 (C.D. Ill. Mar. 20, 2008).
Two-thirds of the cost of a court-appointed electronic discovery expert were recovered by the only one of six plaintiffs who won a trial by jury on his civil rights claim against defendant.
Two-thirds of the cost of a court-appointed electronic discovery expert were recovered by the only one of six plaintiffs who won a trial by jury on his civil rights claim against defendant.
Committee Concerning Community Improvement v. City of Modesto, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94328 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2007).
While acknowledging that costs of exemplification and copying of electronic documents may be costs that can be awarded to a winning party, costs of set up fees, online review, and technical time of a provider that synthesized and uploaded over a million email documents for document production were not costs that could be awarded. Any burdensomeness of the denied costs should have been raised in a motion for a protective order on the basis of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B).
While acknowledging that costs of exemplification and copying of electronic documents may be costs that can be awarded to a winning party, costs of set up fees, online review, and technical time of a provider that synthesized and uploaded over a million email documents for document production were not costs that could be awarded. Any burdensomeness of the denied costs should have been raised in a motion for a protective order on the basis of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B).
Ex parte Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 2007 Ala. LEXIS 229 (Ala. Oct. 26, 2007).
The Alabama Supreme Court has concluded that Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B) and Wiginton factors (Wiginton v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 229 F.R.D. 568, 571-73 (N.D. Ill. 2004)) should be used in considering the extent to which parties in Alabama state court actions must respond to discovery requests for electronically stored information.
The Alabama Supreme Court has concluded that Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B) and Wiginton factors (Wiginton v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 229 F.R.D. 568, 571-73 (N.D. Ill. 2004)) should be used in considering the extent to which parties in Alabama state court actions must respond to discovery requests for electronically stored information.
Peskoff v. Faber, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62595 (D.D.C. Aug. 27, 2007).
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C), counsel for the parties were ordered to "collaborate" with the court in seeking bids from qualified forensic computer technicians to determine the cost to conduct a forensic examination of computers and a server used by plaintiff's former employer.
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C), counsel for the parties were ordered to "collaborate" with the court in seeking bids from qualified forensic computer technicians to determine the cost to conduct a forensic examination of computers and a server used by plaintiff's former employer.
Georgia Department of Agriculture v. Griffin Industries, 2007 Ga. App. LEXIS 306 (Ga. Ct. App. Mar. 19, 2007).
A state agency was entitled to a hearing on cost-sharing before being ordered to restore email from backup tapes to respond to an open records law request.
A state agency was entitled to a hearing on cost-sharing before being ordered to restore email from backup tapes to respond to an open records law request.
United States ex rel. Parikh v. Premera Blue Cross, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23213 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 16, 2007).
While the cost of retrieving archived email may have been substantial, the court declined to order plaintiff to pay a third party's cost of retrieving the email. The third party had claimed the production was burdensome but provided no standard to determine burdensomeness.
While the cost of retrieving archived email may have been substantial, the court declined to order plaintiff to pay a third party's cost of retrieving the email. The third party had claimed the production was burdensome but provided no standard to determine burdensomeness.
Barrows v. Daubert Law Firm LLC, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16283 (W.D. Wisc. Mar. 5, 2007).
While Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4)(A) provided for reimbursement to a party successfully moving for an order compelling discovery, the provision was a fee-shifting rule rather than a sanction for being wrong. A party losing the motion could avoid payment by showing its position was substantially justified.
While Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4)(A) provided for reimbursement to a party successfully moving for an order compelling discovery, the provision was a fee-shifting rule rather than a sanction for being wrong. A party losing the motion could avoid payment by showing its position was substantially justified.
Apsley v. Boeing Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5144 (D. Kan. Jan. 17, 2007).
Based on defendants' opposition to a motion to compel production of email through a search of files of up to 550 individuals for terms as broad as "benefit" or "old," the court ordered a hearing to consider the estimated cost of the discovery, whether costs should be borne by plaintiffs, and whether there might be a more efficient method for discovery than electronic searches.
Based on defendants' opposition to a motion to compel production of email through a search of files of up to 550 individuals for terms as broad as "benefit" or "old," the court ordered a hearing to consider the estimated cost of the discovery, whether costs should be borne by plaintiffs, and whether there might be a more efficient method for discovery than electronic searches.
Aebischer v. Stryker Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87810 (C.D. Ill. Dec. 5, 2006).
Factors weighed by the court in determining sharing of costs of electronic discovery were applied in a cost-sharing analysis of production of paper documents.
Factors weighed by the court in determining sharing of costs of electronic discovery were applied in a cost-sharing analysis of production of paper documents.
Quinby v. WestLB AG,, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64531 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 5, 2006).
Thirty percent of defendant's cost of restoring and searching email of one of its former employees was ordered paid by plaintiff. However, defendant's cost of restoring email of other employees was not shifted to plaintiff because defendant had converted the data into an inaccessible format on backup tapes after defendant should have known the data would be discoverable material.
Thirty percent of defendant's cost of restoring and searching email of one of its former employees was ordered paid by plaintiff. However, defendant's cost of restoring email of other employees was not shifted to plaintiff because defendant had converted the data into an inaccessible format on backup tapes after defendant should have known the data would be discoverable material.
J.C. Associates v. Fidelity & Guaranty Ins. Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32919 (D.D.C. May 25, 2006).
To determine the extent to which documents in an insurer's 1.4 million active and inactive claim and litigation files should be produced, the court ordered conversion of a sample of documents into searchable form, a search in the sample for key words, and a statement of costs to perform the sample search, to be followed by the court's determination through use of the marginal utility test of the need for any further search.
To determine the extent to which documents in an insurer's 1.4 million active and inactive claim and litigation files should be produced, the court ordered conversion of a sample of documents into searchable form, a search in the sample for key words, and a statement of costs to perform the sample search, to be followed by the court's determination through use of the marginal utility test of the need for any further search.
Evolution, Inc. v. The Suntrust Bank, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20490 (D. Kan. Sept. 29, 2004).
In a copyright infringement action by a software developer, the defendant bank was ordered to pay 70 percent of the fees of a Special Master appointed to solve technical issues in discovery. Defendant was ordered to pay a greater share than the usual 50-50 split with the plaintiff because defendant through its representations and lack of cooperation required most of the time spent by the Master.
In a copyright infringement action by a software developer, the defendant bank was ordered to pay 70 percent of the fees of a Special Master appointed to solve technical issues in discovery. Defendant was ordered to pay a greater share than the usual 50-50 split with the plaintiff because defendant through its representations and lack of cooperation required most of the time spent by the Master.
Lipco Electrical Corp. and Action Electrical Contracting Co., Inc., J.V. v. ASG Consulting Corp., 2004 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1337 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Aug. 18, 2004).
In its first New York state case dealing with electronic discovery, the court decided that it would not order production of electronic files unless the requesting party was willing to pay for the production. Under New York law, "the party seeking discovery must bear the cost of production of the items for which discovery is sought."
In its first New York state case dealing with electronic discovery, the court decided that it would not order production of electronic files unless the requesting party was willing to pay for the production. Under New York law, "the party seeking discovery must bear the cost of production of the items for which discovery is sought."
Hagemeyer North America, Inc. v. Gateway Data Sciences Corp., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16310 (E.D. Wisc. Aug. 12, 2004).
Documents placed in storage during bankruptcy proceedings and made available to a plaintiff in a stayed action were being kept in the usual course of business, and providing access to the documents while the action was stayed met production requirements. However, once the defendant company emerged from bankruptcy, it was ordered to restore five of its backup tapes to return to court with information on costs of further restoration of backup tapes. The court held it would then rule on requested cost sharing after evaluation of the seven Zubulake I factors.
Documents placed in storage during bankruptcy proceedings and made available to a plaintiff in a stayed action were being kept in the usual course of business, and providing access to the documents while the action was stayed met production requirements. However, once the defendant company emerged from bankruptcy, it was ordered to restore five of its backup tapes to return to court with information on costs of further restoration of backup tapes. The court held it would then rule on requested cost sharing after evaluation of the seven Zubulake I factors.
Wiginton v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc.,, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15722 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 9, 2004).
In determining whether a requesting party should bear a portion of the costs of producing email from backup tapes, the court added an additional factor to consider in order to protect parties from unduly burdensome or expensive discovery requests. In deciding whether costs should be shifted to the requesting party, "importance of the requested discovery in resolving the issues of the litigation" should be considered in addition to the factors in the McPeek, Rowe, and Zubulake line of cases, according to the Magistrate Judge.
In determining whether a requesting party should bear a portion of the costs of producing email from backup tapes, the court added an additional factor to consider in order to protect parties from unduly burdensome or expensive discovery requests. In deciding whether costs should be shifted to the requesting party, "importance of the requested discovery in resolving the issues of the litigation" should be considered in addition to the factors in the McPeek, Rowe, and Zubulake line of cases, according to the Magistrate Judge.
Zenith Electronics Corp. v. WH-TV Broadcasting Corp., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13657 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 19, 2004).
A successful party in litigation was not entitled through a bill of costs filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. õ 1920 to recover its costs for printing out documents stored in electronic format, the costs of numbering documents, or its computer consultant costs in reviewing documents for privilege and preparing the documents for production.
A successful party in litigation was not entitled through a bill of costs filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. õ 1920 to recover its costs for printing out documents stored in electronic format, the costs of numbering documents, or its computer consultant costs in reviewing documents for privilege and preparing the documents for production.
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC,, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12643 (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2003).
Follow up decision to Zubulake I, extending court's analysis of cost-shifting in cases involving information from backup tapes or other "inaccessible" data.
Follow up decision to Zubulake I, extending court's analysis of cost-shifting in cases involving information from backup tapes or other "inaccessible" data.
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC,, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7939, 91 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1574 (S.D.N.Y. May 13, 2003).
Court considers the extent to which "inaccessible" electronic data is discoverable, and who should pay for its production. Three-step analysis established for deciding disputes regarding the scope and cost of electronic discovery.
Court considers the extent to which "inaccessible" electronic data is discoverable, and who should pay for its production. Three-step analysis established for deciding disputes regarding the scope and cost of electronic discovery.
Premier Homes & Land Corp. v. Cheswell, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24948 (1st Cir. December 19, 2002).
Defendant was awarded attorney and expert fees due to plaintiff's fabrication of email used as evidence.
Defendant was awarded attorney and expert fees due to plaintiff's fabrication of email used as evidence.
Hartford Courant Co. v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 261 Conn. 86, 801 A.2d 759, 2002 Conn. LEXIS 274, 30 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 2233 (July 23, 2002).
FOIA provision capping fees for production at actual agency cost applied in request to produce database.
FOIA provision capping fees for production at actual agency cost applied in request to produce database.
Murphy Oil USA, Inc. v. Fluor Daniel, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist LEXIS 3196 (E.D. La. 2002).
Court considers factors determining whether to shift costs of backup tape restoration to requesting party; determines requesting party should pay.
Court considers factors determining whether to shift costs of backup tape restoration to requesting party; determines requesting party should pay.
In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Securities Litigation, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13808 (D. N.J. 2002).
Defendants did not have to report to plaintiffs that documents being copied for plaintiffs were being scanned as they were copied, and plaintiffs remained obligated to pay copying charges they agreed to prior to production. However, defendants were required to provide copies of disks with the scanned documents to plaintiff without charge for the scanning.
Defendants did not have to report to plaintiffs that documents being copied for plaintiffs were being scanned as they were copied, and plaintiffs remained obligated to pay copying charges they agreed to prior to production. However, defendants were required to provide copies of disks with the scanned documents to plaintiff without charge for the scanning.
McPeek v. Ashcroft,, 202 F.R.D. 31, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12061, 50 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 528 (D.D.C. Aug. 1, 2001).
Court applies "marginal utility" analysis to question whether to order restoration of backup tapes; orders restoration of sample to inform further ruling.
Court applies "marginal utility" analysis to question whether to order restoration of backup tapes; orders restoration of sample to inform further ruling.
United States v. Visa USA, Inc., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10212, (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 1999).
The scope of an archived email search was narrowed and the court reserved decision about which party would bear the cost of producing the emails.
The scope of an archived email search was narrowed and the court reserved decision about which party would bear the cost of producing the emails.
