excerpts fromDoc 357, defendant gripes re enormous cost of discovery !
in response to
by
Message: Reexamination stats are on our side
On the other hand, the vendor costs alone associated with complying with Plaintiff’s
broad discovery demands will put significant, unwarranted economic pressure on each of the
Defendants.
Defendants have not asked the Court to require the requesting party to pay all of the costs
of electronic discovery imposed on the producing party -- only the outside vendor costs. The
internal costs of complying with e-discovery are very significant, both in terms of lost employee
time and internal expense.
broad discovery demands will put significant, unwarranted economic pressure on each of the
Defendants.
Defendants have not asked the Court to require the requesting party to pay all of the costs
of electronic discovery imposed on the producing party -- only the outside vendor costs. The
internal costs of complying with e-discovery are very significant, both in terms of lost employee
time and internal expense.
Plaintiff may be able to identify a few exceptions where documents produced as a result of
these requests might include relevant information, but the problem is that the vast majority of the
many thousands of responsive documents produced at great expense to the Defendants will have
no bearing whatsoever on the case.
these requests might include relevant information, but the problem is that the vast majority of the
many thousands of responsive documents produced at great expense to the Defendants will have
no bearing whatsoever on the case.
As just one example of the undue e-discovery burden Plaintiff is trying to impose on
Defendants, notwithstanding that Defendants long ago produced documents sufficient to show
the structure, operation and components of the accused products, Plaintiff has requested that
Defendants additionally produce “[a]ll documents … that discuss, refer to, or evidence the …
development, or manufacture of the ‘Currently Accused Products,’ including … project
proposals, memos, notes, inventor notebooks, invention disclosures, communications regarding
product development, revisions, histories, flowcharts, drawings, specifications, documents
pertaining to testing, status reports or summaries, progress reports or summaries, development
schedules, computer simulations, logic diagrams, technical documentation, and functional
documentation.” (Ex. 1, Request No. 11.) This request, like all of Plaintiff’s requests, applies to
more than 300 accused products, some of which have not been marketed since 2005.
Defendants, notwithstanding that Defendants long ago produced documents sufficient to show
the structure, operation and components of the accused products, Plaintiff has requested that
Defendants additionally produce “[a]ll documents … that discuss, refer to, or evidence the …
development, or manufacture of the ‘Currently Accused Products,’ including … project
proposals, memos, notes, inventor notebooks, invention disclosures, communications regarding
product development, revisions, histories, flowcharts, drawings, specifications, documents
pertaining to testing, status reports or summaries, progress reports or summaries, development
schedules, computer simulations, logic diagrams, technical documentation, and functional
documentation.” (Ex. 1, Request No. 11.) This request, like all of Plaintiff’s requests, applies to
more than 300 accused products, some of which have not been marketed since 2005.
Discovery on liability-related issues opened on August 20, 2010. (Docket No. 306.) On
August 23, 2010, Plaintiff served sweeping discovery requests, which on their face would
require Defendants to search for, gather and produce hundreds of thousands -- if not millions --
of documents, most of which are stored electronically. The vendor costs alone for producing
electronic documents in response to these requests will run into the millions of dollars, and the
business and employee-related costs associated with searching for, gathering and producing so
many documents would be exorbitant.
August 23, 2010, Plaintiff served sweeping discovery requests, which on their face would
require Defendants to search for, gather and produce hundreds of thousands -- if not millions --
of documents, most of which are stored electronically. The vendor costs alone for producing
electronic documents in response to these requests will run into the millions of dollars, and the
business and employee-related costs associated with searching for, gathering and producing so
many documents would be exorbitant.
13 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply