Chat with us, powered by LiveChat Abstract TOPIC Prepare an abstract of a case or article dealing with e-Discovery. | acewriters
+1(978)310-4246 credencewriters@gmail.com
  

AbstractsTOPIC- Prepare an abstract of a case or article dealing with e-Discovery.There are required elements that must be included with the abstract .Please play close attention to these instructions and guidelines.The abstract is a summary of the author’s article in the words of the student.Abstracts submitted containing the original article’s text in full or part will be discounted from the total required submissions for the semester.Cases or articles may be chosen from technical journals or websites, legal journals or websites or general news or information sites. These cases must cover civil litigation not criminal.If you chose an article that does not directly involve a specific case or that involves several cases, you must be creative in completing the information for each required heading.It is not acceptable to simply say NA or to skip a heading because the article you choose does not have information about that topic. In addition, you may have to complete additional research on the case or article in able to fully complete the abstract.Remember to focus on civil litigation. Another place to start your search is by entering the topic plus “case” into your search engine and review the results for potential cases. Timely legal developments are obviously preferred; reporting on a case that has subsequently been overturned or a law that has been amended or repealed does little to keep you informed about current issues. Cases should be from 2007 forward.If the article you chose is a composite of several cases, you should pick only one case and delve into the appropriate aspects of that case.In addition, you should search the case using your search engine to assure you are aware of any updated information.Abstract RequirementsCAUTION: YOU MUST USE THE TEMPLATE HEADINGS FOR EACH OF YOUR ABSTRACTS.IF THE TEMPLATE IS NOT FOLLOWED, YOU WILL RECEIVE AT LEAST ONE GRADE LOWER FOR THE SUBMISSION.YOU MUST USE ONLY CIVIL CASES FOR YOUR ABSTRACTS.Each abstract must contain the following headings: Article title Author Publication Publication date URL (Do not include the original article.If I have questions, I can use the URL to find the original article). Facts of the dispute Plaintiff’s claim Defendant’s claim Applicable law (i.e. statute, regulation, treaty) Issue of law Remedy Sought Holding (may state n/a, if an adjudicatory body has not rendered a decision) e-Discovery process used Impact on e-discovery precedents, case law, and the case(s) at issue You must include your evaluation of the possible impact on the e-evidence or e-discovery process on the particular legal issues in the article under the appropriate headings.This is where you apply your knowledge and skills as business professional. If none of these elements apply, then it is incumbent on you to be creative and do analysis on what you case covers.No analysis will equal a lower grade and possibly a “F” for your abstract. Your abstract should reflect a summary in your own words of the material in the article you are discussing.If I have to use the URL to read the article to understand your abstract, your grade will automatically be lowered one grade.It is your job to write in a clear, convincing manner and convey the essence of the case or article.disks.Defendant’s ClaimDue to the system that the emails were stored on, ADT sought to avoid their obligation to produce the archived emails.According to ADT’s Manager of Information Technology, John Mitchell, restoring the emails could take four years at an initial cost of $88,000.00 and six months later Mitchell amended the cost to ten times that amount.Applicable Law:Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(B):A party need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the party identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost.Issues of Law:ADT must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of the burden and cost it would require to retrieve the documents from its Plasmon System.Starbucks conducted their own research with vendors that estimated the total cost of retrieval, much lower than the cost that ADT estimated and the Court determined that ADT had other options to retrieve the digital evidence in a more timely and costly manner.Did ADT prove that the discovery sought by Starbucks is not reasonably accessible?Remedy Sought:With its motion to compel, Starbucks is awarded costs and fees.Holding:In Starbucks Corporation v. ADT Security Services, Inc., No. 08-cv-900-JCC, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, (D. Wash. Apr. 30, 2009) Starbuck’s motion to compel was granted.The court relied on AAB Joint Venture v. U.S., 75 Fed. CI. 432, 2007, where the court noted the defendant cannot be relieved of duties to produce documents just because the defendant has chosen a means to preserve the evidence on a system that allows expensive means of retrieval.Impact on E-Discovery:This ruling stressed that good cause would require production even if the information were deemed not reasonably accessible.Further research determined that the emails that Starbucks were seeking were important in determining what witnesses knew about the ADT install contract requirements for Starbucks nationwide.The court ruled that without ADT’s ESI, Starbucks would not be allowed to discover what the witnesses knew and have the evidence to challenge the testimony of the five individuals.Finally, the court scheduled subsequent discovery conferences and determined that ADT could produce email “stubs” that contained relevant data that included “To”, “From”, “Subject Matter” data and approximately 80 characters of email that Starbucks could use to filter through the information and determine what may be important.It was also determined that more than half of the Plasmon-format disks were actually utilized on Universal Data Format (UDF) that would allow a less burdensome retrieval process.Impact on e-discovery precedents, case law, and the case(s) at issue:Companies need to look at alternative ways to meet a discovery request and certainly not over-estimate costs if other avenues are available to comply with the discovery request.
sample_abstract.docx

abstract_requirements.docx

Unformatted Attachment Preview

SAMPLE ABSTRACT EXAMPLE
Sample Article [Do Not Include The Article In Your Submission. It is provided here as a teaching
tool.]
Electronic Discovery Law
Posted at 9:22 AM on January 13, 2010 by K&L Gates
Court Finds Claims of Burden and Expense “Exaggerated,” Declines to Find Emails “Not
Reasonably Accessible”
Starbucks Corp. v. ADT Security Servs., Inc., 2009 WL 4730798 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 30, 2009)
In this recently released opinion written early last year, the defendant, ADT Security Services, Inc.
(“ADT”), sought to avoid its obligation to produce archived emails by arguing the emails were not
“reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost,” as that term is used in Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(2)(B). In support of this position, ADT’s Manager of Information Technology, John Mitchell,
provided various estimates regarding the potential cost of time and money to restore the requested
email. In response, the plaintiff, Starbucks Corporation (“Starbucks”), provided its own estimates of
the potential cost which were significantly lower than those proffered by ADT. Finding Mitchell had
“at every turn, provided exaggerated reasons and exaggerated expenses as to why ADT allegedly
cannot and should not be ordered to comply with its discovery obligations,” the court declined to
find the information at issue “not reasonably accessible.” Moreover, the court indicated that even
had the information been deemed not reasonably accessible, the court would have found that good
cause existed to order the production. Accordingly, Starbuck’s motion to compel was granted.
Starbucks sought to compel the production of archived emails from the years 2003 through 2006
regarding “five specifically identified current and former employees.” ADT objected, arguing that
the emails were not reasonably accessible because of the “cumbersome” nature of the system on
which they were stored and the resulting burden of retrieval. Specifically, ADT represented that the
emails were stored in a format that could only be read by proprietary equipment, that restoring the
emails could take up to four years (if all 5 custodians had 25,000 relevant emails to restore), and
that such retrieval would result in significant disruptions to ADT’s business. Regarding the cost of
the production, including processing, etc., Mitchell initially estimated a cost of $88,000. Just six
months later, Mitchell amended the estimate to a potential cost of $834,285. Notably, despite the
allegedly significant problems with the Plasmon System (the system on which the archived emails
were stored), ADT continued to utilize it in the operation of its business and had not migrated the
archived emails to its newer, more easily accessed system.
As discovery continued, two alternatives for production arose. First, the court became aware that
ADT could produce “email stubs,” containing limited information such as the “To,” “From,” and
“Subject Matter” data and about 80 characters of email. These stubs could be retrieved “relatively
quickly” (subject to a clawback provision) and Starbucks could then specify which emails it wanted
to see. Second, the court learned that “more than half” of the DVDs in the Plasmon system were not,
in fact, in the Plasmon-format, and thus could be read by a vendor. However, ADT argued that the
disks still “could not be read by all equipment,” that the processing would still take an extended
period of time, that additional equipment would need to be purchased, and that approximately 2
terabytes of storage would need to be stored. Anticipating the need for outside assistance, ADT
provided an estimate of “several hundred thousand dollars” for a vendor “just to make copies and
thousands more to purchase a hardware system to house the data”, but failed to include the
vendor’s proposal with its submission to the court.
In response, Starbucks provided its own estimates (procured from two outside vendors) which
indicated the likely cost to be between $17,000 and $26,000. These estimates were attached to the
declarations provided to the court.
Accordingly, the court determined that “Mr. Mitchell has, at every turn, provided exaggerated
reasons and exaggerated expenses as to why ADT allegedly cannot and should not be ordered to
comply with its discovery obligations. He simply is not credible.” Moreover, the court stated that
“it is difficult to conclude that the ESI sought in this case is ‘not reasonably accessible’ in light of the
fact that the Plasmon System continues to be used by ADT personnel…The fact that a company as
sophisticated as ADT…chooses to continue to utilize the Plasmon System instead of migrating its
data to its now-functional archival system should not work to plaintiff’s disadvantage.”
The court went on to state that, even had it found the email “not reasonably accessible,” it would
have found that “good cause” existed to compel production, considering the factors set forth in Fed.
R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). In so finding, the court rejected ADT’s “alternatives to production” including
interrogatories and depositions. The court also dismissed ADT’s assertion that certain of the emails
may already have been in Starbuck’s possession.
Balancing the cost of production versus the likely benefit, the court found it significant that “the ESI
critical to this case was created during the time period which means that it is housed on the
Plasmon System.” The court went on to note the significant stakes for both parties (e.g. Starbucks
was seeking at least one million dollars) and that “both parties in this case have the substantial
resources necessary to conduct this litigation.” Finally, the court noted that Starbucks had
attempted to mitigate the burden to ADT by limiting the number of custodians and providing terms
to filter for those persons.
Thereafter, the court ordered ADT to “implement an immediate plan to make copies of the archived
UDF-formatted disks and to save them to an appropriate searchable storage medium.” Regarding
the disks in the proprietary format, the court found the complete restoration of those disks
“inappropriate at this time,” and instead ordered the production of all relevant emails’ stubs and for
Starbucks to designate emails for restoration and production. Finally, the court ordered the parties
to confer to agree upon fees and costs due to Starbucks or, in the event agreement could not be
reached, for Starbucks to file an appropriate motion requesting such fees.
Sample Abstract
Title:
Court Finds Claims of Burden and Expense “Exaggerated,” Declines to Find E-mails
“Not Reasonably Accessible”
Author:
K & L Gates
Publication: Electronic Discovery Law
Date:
January 13, 2010
URL:
http://www.ediscoverylaw.com/2010/01/articles/case-summaries/court-findsclaims-of-burden-and-expense-exaggerated-declines-to-find-emails-not-reasonablyaccessible/print.html {Please do not include the actual article in the abstract submission, only the
URL}.
Facts:
The defendant, ADT Security Services, Inc. “ADT”, argued that the archived emails requested by the
Starbucks Corporation (“Starbucks”) were not “reasonably accessible because of undue burden or
cost”.
Plaintiff’s Claim
Per Rule 34, Starbucks requested discovery of archived emails from 2003 through 2006 of five
current and former employees. Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC., 217 F.R.D. 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2003),
allows such a request even for electronic evidence that has been deleted and resides on backup
Abstracts
TOPIC- Prepare an abstract of a case or article dealing with e-Discovery.
There are required elements that must be included with the abstract. Please play close
attention to these instructions and guidelines.
The abstract is a summary of the author’s article in the words of the student. Abstracts
submitted containing the original article’s text in full or part will be discounted from the total
required submissions for the semester.
Cases or articles may be chosen from technical journals or websites, legal journals or websites or
general news or information sites. These cases must cover civil litigation not criminal.
If you chose an article that does not directly involve a specific case or that involves several cases,
you must be creative in completing the information for each required heading. It is not
acceptable to simply say NA or to skip a heading because the article you choose does not have
information about that topic. In addition, you may have to complete additional research on the
case or article in able to fully complete the abstract.
Remember to focus on civil litigation. Another place to start your search is by entering the topic
plus “case” into your search engine and review the results for potential cases.
Timely legal developments are obviously preferred; reporting on a case that has subsequently
been overturned or a law that has been amended or repealed does little to keep you informed
about current issues. Cases should be from 2007 forward. If the article you chose is a composite
of several cases, you should pick only one case and delve into the appropriate aspects of that
case. In addition, you should search the case using your search engine to assure you are aware
of any updated information.
Abstract Requirements
CAUTION: YOU MUST USE THE TEMPLATE HEADINGS FOR EACH OF YOUR ABSTRACTS. IF THE
TEMPLATE IS NOT FOLLOWED, YOU WILL RECEIVE AT LEAST ONE GRADE LOWER FOR THE
SUBMISSION.
YOU MUST USE ONLY CIVIL CASES FOR YOUR ABSTRACTS.
Each abstract must contain the following headings:














Article title
Author
Publication
Publication date
URL (Do not include the original article. If I have questions, I can use the URL to find the
original article).
Facts of the dispute
Plaintiff’s claim
Defendant’s claim
Applicable law (i.e. statute, regulation, treaty)
Issue of law
Remedy Sought
Holding (may state n/a, if an adjudicatory body has not rendered a decision)
e-Discovery process used
Impact on e-discovery precedents, case law, and the case(s) at issue
You must include your evaluation of the possible impact on the e-evidence or e-discovery
process on the particular legal issues in the article under the appropriate headings. This is
where you apply your knowledge and skills as business professional. If none of these elements
apply, then it is incumbent on you to be creative and do analysis on what you case covers. No
analysis will equal a lower grade and possibly a “F” for your abstract.
Your abstract should reflect a summary in your own words of the material in the article you are
discussing. If I have to use the URL to read the article to understand your abstract, your grade
will automatically be lowered one grade. It is your job to write in a clear, convincing manner
and convey the essence of the case or article.
disks.
Defendant’s Claim
Due to the system that the emails were stored on, ADT sought to avoid their obligation to
produce the archived emails. According to ADT’s Manager of Information Technology, John
Mitchell, restoring the emails could take four years at an initial cost of $88,000.00 and six
months later Mitchell amended the cost to ten times that amount.
Applicable Law:
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(B): A party need not provide discovery of electronically stored information
from sources that the party identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or
cost.
Issues of Law:
ADT must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of the burden and
cost it would require to retrieve the documents from its Plasmon System. Starbucks conducted
their own research with vendors that estimated the total cost of retrieval, much lower than the
cost that ADT estimated and the Court determined that ADT had other options to retrieve the
digital evidence in a more timely and costly manner. Did ADT prove that the discovery sought
by Starbucks is not reasonably accessible?
Remedy Sought:
With its motion to compel, Starbucks is awarded costs and fees.
Holding:
In Starbucks Corporation v. ADT Security Services, Inc., No. 08-cv-900-JCC, in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington, (D. Wash. Apr. 30, 2009) Starbuck’s
motion to compel was granted.
The court relied on AAB Joint Venture v. U.S., 75 Fed. CI. 432, 2007, where the court noted the
defendant cannot be relieved of duties to produce documents just because the defendant has
chosen a means to preserve the evidence on a system that allows expensive means of retrieval.
Impact on E-Discovery:
This ruling stressed that good cause would require production even if the information were
deemed not reasonably accessible. Further research determined that the emails that Starbucks
were seeking were important in determining what witnesses knew about the ADT install
contract requirements for Starbucks nationwide. The court ruled that without ADT’s ESI,
Starbucks would not be allowed to discover what the witnesses knew and have the evidence to
challenge the testimony of the five individuals. Finally, the court scheduled subsequent
discovery conferences and determined that ADT could produce email “stubs” that contained
relevant data that included “To”, “From”, “Subject Matter” data and approximately 80
characters of email that Starbucks could use to filter through the information and determine
what may be important. It was also determined that more than half of the Plasmon-format
disks were actually utilized on Universal Data Format (UDF) that would allow a less burdensome
retrieval process.
Impact on e-discovery precedents, case law, and the case(s) at issue:
Companies need to look at alternative ways to meet a discovery request and certainly not overestimate costs if other avenues are available to comply with the discovery request.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment

error: Content is protected !!