Wiginton v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc. United States District Court Northern District of Illinois Decided: August 10, 2004. Parties:. Plaintiffs:
PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Wiginton v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc.' - lizina
Download NowAn Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Plaintiffs are entitled to relevant information as long as discovery is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Rule 26(b)(2)(iii): The Proportionality Test
The burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of discovery in resolving the issues.
Rule 26(c): Protection Order
The general presumption in discovery is that the responding party must bear the expense of complying with discovery requests.
However, the court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense by shifting the costs to the non-producing party rather than just disallowing the requested discovery.
The parties spent a lot of time characterizing the other side’s mistakes in front of the court, instead of providing factual support for their own claims, do you think that that played a role in the analysis of the cost-shifting factors and ultimately in the percentages that each of the parties would be required to pay?
Do you think that the 25-75% split in the costs for discovery was fair?
The Plaintiffs great financial disadvantage compared to CBRE, and
The reference the court repeatedly made to the probability that CBRE had already destroyed relevant documents because the backup tapes were not a complete depiction of the emails at CBRE.