date july 24, 2003 jurisdiction u.s. district court for the southern district of new york
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Date July 24, 2003 Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5519c1eb550346047c8b46a8/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
ZUBULAKE V.
UBS WARBURG LLC216 F.R.D. 280 (S.D.N.Y 2003)
“ZUBULAKE III”
![Page 2: Date July 24, 2003 Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5519c1eb550346047c8b46a8/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
“Zubulake III”
Date July 24, 2003
Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York
![Page 3: Date July 24, 2003 Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5519c1eb550346047c8b46a8/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Parties to the Dispute
Plaintiff: Laura Zubulake Equities Trader former employed by defendant
Buying and selling of company stock shares Filed suit for gender discrimination
Defendant: UBS Warburg LLC Global Financial Services Company
Over 80,000 employees in over 50 countries Approximately 3 trillion US dollars worth of invested
assets
![Page 4: Date July 24, 2003 Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5519c1eb550346047c8b46a8/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Facts
∏ filed a gender discrimination suit against ∆ alleging gender discrimination, failure to promote and retaliation violating federal, state, and city law
May 13, 2003 – “Zubulake I” ∏ is entitled to discovery of e-mails that are
available only on backup tapes Consideration of cost-shifting may be
appropriate
![Page 5: Date July 24, 2003 Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5519c1eb550346047c8b46a8/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Facts
E-mails to be produced are sent to or from 5 specified UBS employees
At the time of Zubulake I, 94 backup tapes are identified by ∆ as containing responsive documents ∏ is allowed to choose 5 of the tapes to be restored
for a factual basis to be created before full restoration is ordered
∆ states that only 77 tapes contain responsive documents
Restoration would be done by a third-party vendor (Pinkerton Consulting & Investigations)
![Page 6: Date July 24, 2003 Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5519c1eb550346047c8b46a8/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Facts
Results of the 5 Restored Tapes 8,344 e-mails
6,203 unique e-mails Term search of the e-mails
1,541 e-mails 1,075 e-mails
∆’s document review 600 e-mails
![Page 7: Date July 24, 2003 Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5519c1eb550346047c8b46a8/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Facts
Costs for the 5 tapes Restoration & Search $11,524.63 Document review (attorney)
$4,633 Document production (paralegal)
$2,845.80 TOTAL $19,003.43
Estimated Cost to restore remaining 72 tapes $273,649.39
![Page 8: Date July 24, 2003 Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5519c1eb550346047c8b46a8/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
e-Discovery Legal Framework
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Rule 26 – Initial Disclosure 26(b)(2)(B) – Specific Limits on
Electronically Stored Information 26(b)(2)(C) – Limiting the frequency/extent
of discovery 26(b)(5) – Claiming Privilege 26(c)(3) – Awarding Expenses
![Page 9: Date July 24, 2003 Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5519c1eb550346047c8b46a8/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
e-Discovery Legal Framework
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
Rule 34 – Producing Documents, Electronically Stored Information, and Tangible Things … 34(a) – requests for electronically stored
information directly or after translation into a reasonable usable form
34(b) – Procedure of request
![Page 10: Date July 24, 2003 Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5519c1eb550346047c8b46a8/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
e-Discovery Legal Framework
Zubulake I – 7-Factor Test
1. Extent to which the request is specifically tailored to discover relevant information
2. Availability of such information from other sources
3. Total cost of production compared to the amount in controversy
4. Total cost of production compared to the resources available to each party
![Page 11: Date July 24, 2003 Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5519c1eb550346047c8b46a8/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
e-Discovery Legal Framework
Zubulake I – 7-Factor Test
5. Relative ability of each party to control costs and its incentive to do so
6. Importance of the issues at stake in the litigation
7. Relative benefits to the parties of obtaining the information
![Page 12: Date July 24, 2003 Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5519c1eb550346047c8b46a8/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Analysis using the 7-Factor Test
Extent to which the request is specifically tailored to discover relevant information All documents concerning any
communication by or between UBS employees concerning ∏
5 employees Between August 1999 and December 2001
![Page 13: Date July 24, 2003 Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5519c1eb550346047c8b46a8/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Analysis using the 7-Factor Test
Availability of such information from other sources Prior to tape recovery - ∆ produced 100
pages of e-mails After tape recovery - ∆ produced 853 pages
of e-mails Evidence one of the specified employees
actively concealed and deleted relevant e-mails after ∏ filed suit
![Page 14: Date July 24, 2003 Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5519c1eb550346047c8b46a8/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Analysis using the 7-Factor Test
Total Cost of Production Compared to the amount in controversy ∏’s estimated damages with a successful
suit Between 15 and 19 Million US dollars
∆’s estimated damages Approximately 1.2 million US dollars
Estimated Cost of restoring all tapes $165,954.67
Only cost of restoring tapes – cost of review not included
![Page 15: Date July 24, 2003 Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5519c1eb550346047c8b46a8/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Analysis using the 7-Factor Test
Total Cost of Production Compared to the Resources Available to Each Party UBS Estimated Net Income for FY 2008
17.9 Billion US Dollars Laura Zubulake
Salary while employed at UBS $650,000
Has been unemployed for 2 years
![Page 16: Date July 24, 2003 Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5519c1eb550346047c8b46a8/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Analysis using the 7-Factor Test
Relative Ability of Each Party to Control Costs and Its Incentive to do so Cheaper vendor could have been chosen
Once vendor is chosen, costs are not within the control of the contracting party
Tapes were relatively well organized allowing for easy selection
Discovery request is already targeted
![Page 17: Date July 24, 2003 Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5519c1eb550346047c8b46a8/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Analysis using the 7-Factor Test
Importance of the Issues at Stake in the Litigation “Although this case revolves around a
weighty issue-discrimination in the workplace-it is hardly unique. Claims of discrimination are common, and while discrimination is an important problem, this litigation does not present a particularly novel issue.” Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC , 216 F.R.D. 280, 289 (S.D.N.Y.,2003)
![Page 18: Date July 24, 2003 Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5519c1eb550346047c8b46a8/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Analysis using the 7-Factor Test
Relative Benefits to the Parties of Obtaining the Information ∏ - discovery of potentially relevant e-mails
proving discrimination ∆ - NONE?
![Page 19: Date July 24, 2003 Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5519c1eb550346047c8b46a8/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Issues
$
![Page 20: Date July 24, 2003 Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5519c1eb550346047c8b46a8/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Issues
![Page 21: Date July 24, 2003 Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5519c1eb550346047c8b46a8/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Result of 7-Factor Test
Remaining 72 tapes will be ordered restored Zubulake (requesting party) will pay for 25% of the
restoration costs Cost of reviewing and producing documents will
remain solely with UBS Cost shifting is only appropriate for inaccessible but
otherwise discoverable data “[T]echnology may increasingly permit litigants to
reconstruct lost or inaccessible information, but once restored to an accessible form, the usual rules of discovery apply.” Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 216 F.R.D. 280, 291 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
![Page 22: Date July 24, 2003 Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5519c1eb550346047c8b46a8/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Conclusion
Cost shifting is only to be applied in specific situations “It is worth emphasizing again that cost-
shifting is potentially appropriate only when inaccessible data is sought. When a discovery request seeks accessible data-for example, active on-line or near-line data-it is typically inappropriate to consider cost-shifting.” Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 216 F.R.D. 280, 284 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
![Page 23: Date July 24, 2003 Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5519c1eb550346047c8b46a8/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Conclusion
The 7-Factor Test should be used to evaluate the proportionality portion of Rule 26(b)(2)(C) and as a guide when considering a cost-shifting motion
The 7-factor test is not a numerical equation but is only meant as a guide for judges to utilize
If cost-shifting is granted, the amount shifted is, “a matter of judgment and fairness rather than a mathematical consequence of the seven factors discussed above.” Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 216 F.R.D. 280, 284 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
![Page 24: Date July 24, 2003 Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5519c1eb550346047c8b46a8/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Question
Was it fair to assess 25% of the restoration costs onto Zubulake?
Considerations Zubulake has been unemployed for 2 years Zubulake was making $650,000 prior to ending her
employment UBS is a multi-national corporation with billions in net income Zubulake’s request was very targeted The e-mails revealed in the 5 test tapes did not show evidence
of discrimination as alleged in the complaint The e-mails did reveal a hostile work environment
![Page 25: Date July 24, 2003 Jurisdiction U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022070306/5519c1eb550346047c8b46a8/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Trivia
UBS was named one of the 100 best companies for working mothers living in the U.S. in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 by Working Mother Magazine
UBS is a member of the Stonewall Diversity Champion Britain's good practice forum in which
employers can work with Stonewall, and each other, to promote lesbian, gay and bisexual equality in the workplace.