Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitdiscoverystatuteappealtrialmotiontrade secretcivil procedure
trialmotionrespondent

Related Cases

Security National Bank of Sioux City, IA v. Jones Day, 800 F.3d 936, 92 Fed.R.Serv.3d 689
View Case »
Stewart Title Guaranty Co. v. Hadnot, 101 S.W.3d 642, 4 A.L.R.6th 763
View Case »
In re Solomon R., 123 A.D.3d 934, 999 N.Y.S.2d 435, 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 08849
View Case »
Farris v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 119 Cal.App.4th 671, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 618, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5355, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7318
View Case »
Flying J Inc. v. TA Operating Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2008 WL 648545
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Toshiba America Electronic Components v. Superior Court, 124 Cal.App.4th 762, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 532, 04 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,661, 2004 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14,401

Facts

Lexar Media, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. and its parent company for misappropriation of trade secrets and other claims. Lexar requested the production of documents, including emails, from Toshiba's backup tapes, which contained data from 1994 to 2002. After Toshiba produced over 20,000 pages of documents, a dispute arose regarding the costs associated with recovering additional data from over 800 backup tapes, which Toshiba estimated would cost between $1.5 and $1.9 million. Lexar filed a motion to compel production without agreeing to share the costs.

TAEC had more than 800 backup tapes for the pertinent time period—1994 through October 2002.

Issue

Whether the trial court erred in not requiring Lexar to pay for the costs associated with recovering usable information from Toshiba's backup tapes.

The trial court abused its discretion in failing to require Lexar to pay all or part of the cost of restoring and searching its backup tapes.

Rule

Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2031(g)(1), the demanding party is responsible for the reasonable expenses incurred by the responding party in translating data compilations into usable form.

Any documents demanded shall either be produced as they are kept in the usual course of business, or be organized and labeled to correspond with the categories in the demand.

Analysis

The Court of Appeal determined that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to apply section 2031(g)(1), which mandates that the demanding party bear the costs of translating data compilations. The court emphasized that the statute's language is clear and requires cost-shifting to the demanding party when translation is necessary. The trial court's order did not consider this provision, leading to an incorrect ruling.

The trial court's decision, which was based upon the general rule that the responding party bears that expense, was based upon a faulty legal analysis and was, therefore, an abuse of discretion.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order compelling production without requiring Lexar to pay any costs, as the statute clearly shifts the expense to the demanding party.

Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue directing respondent to vacate its order granting Lexar's Motion to Compel Electronic Document Production.

Who won?

Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. prevailed because the Court of Appeal found that the trial court had abused its discretion by not applying the cost-shifting provision of the discovery statute.

The trial court's order was an abuse of discretion not because section 2031(g)(1) necessarily requires Lexar to pay all of TAEC's expenses in recovering data from its backup tapes.

You must be