Post Process

Everything to do with E-discovery & ESI

Case Blurb: WESTLB AG; Who bears the cost of production?

Posted by rjbiii on August 29, 2007

There is a presumption “the responding party must bear the expense of complying with discovery requests.” Quinby v. WESTLB AG, 2006 WL 2597900 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (citing Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 358 (1978)).
Under Rule 26(c), a district court may issue an order protecting the responding party from undue burden or expense by “conditioning discovery on the requesting party’s payment of the costs of discovery.” Id.
Such an order may be granted only on the motion of the responding party and “for good cause shown.” Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(c)).
The Responding party has the burden of proof on a motion for cost-shifting. Id. (citing Zubulake I, 217 F.R.D. at 318).

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: