Zubulake v UBS Warburg I: Judge Scheindlin Sets E-Discovery Agenda

by Exterro, Inc.

There’s an apocryphal quote that calls attention to the fact that history is not objective. Frequently attributed to Winston Churchill, “History is written by the victors” foregrounds the notion that history is a story, constructed collectively, that looks back into the past and defines it in an attempt to make sense of the present. Today, with e-discovery ascendant as both an industry and as an endeavor, with technology driving the courts to carve out new standards for the practice of discovery, legal historians must look at historic cases that presage the critical role e-discovery plays in the legal world today.

In many ways, the history of e-discovery is still in its first draft. As a formal endeavor, it is less than a quarter century old. Preliminary attempts at recovering and analyzing electronically stored information (ESI) were taking place in the mid-90s, but at that time, early e-discovery efforts were likely seen as another form of discovery, not as a thing unto itself. Perhaps the 2006 FRCP amendments might mark as good a “birthday” as any for when e-discovery stepped out of the shadows of discovery and became its own thing.

Zubulake v. UBS Warburg

But before the 2006 FRCP ampendments, Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, and specifically US District Judge Shira Scheindlin's five pre-trial rulings, set the agenda for a conversation that is still unfolding in the world of e-discovery to this day. In the case, plaintiff Laura Zubulake filed a gender discrimination case against her employer, UBS Warburg, over a promotion that she believed she had earned but did not receive. In 2001, when she filed the case, none of the parties involved appreciated the case as history-making, as opposed to a standard workplace discrimination case. (Another excellent resource is the ABA Journal's article, Looking back on Zubulake, 10 years later, by Victor Li).

History has proven them wrong. On May 13, 2003, Judge Scheindlin issued the first two of five pretrial rulings that one can safely say laid the groundwork for the discipline of e-discovery. To celebrate the occasion, this article (the first in a series of four articles on the various pre-trial Zubulake v. UBS Warburg rulings) will look at the issues addressed in Zubulake I, issued fifteen years ago. (We’ll not address Zubulake II, as it did not focus directly on e-discovery issues.)

Zubulake I laid the groundwork on a number of issues that have continued to resonate in the practice of e-discovery today:

  • Cost shifting
  • Accessibility and classes of data
  • “Unduly burdensome” discovery requests
  • Process for resolving discovery disputes

Cost shifting

When UBS Warburg produced only 350 pages of documents compared to 450 pages of email provided by Zubulake alone, Zubulake requested the defendant produce documents from backup tapes. UBS argued that the plaintiff should bear the expense ($300,000) citing an earlier court decision. The court clarified that cost shifting was allowed, but not assumed to be appropriate just because discovery included ESI.

Accessibility and classes of data

Key to the opposing parties’ arguments about cost-shifting were the multiple classes of data and their relative accessibility. Data sources included:

  • Online data including hard disks
  • Optical disk stored data
  • Magnetic tapes stored offline
  • Backup tapes
  • Erased or damaged data

In short, Judge Scheindlin ruled that accessible data was not subject to cost shifting, but that cost shifting was appropriate for data that was reasonably inaccessible.

“Unduly burdensome”

The case UBS Warburg cited to explain the burden of Zubulake’s discovery requests was Rowe Entertainment, Inc. v. William Morris Agency, Inc. That case used a variety of factors to weigh undue burden, including:

  • Specificity of discovery requests
  • Likelihood of discovering critical information
  • Availability of such information from other sources
  • Purposes for which the responding party maintains the requested data
  • Relative benefits to the parties of obtaining the information
  • Total cost associated with production
  • Relative ability of each party to control costs and incentive to do so
  • Resources available to each party

Process for resolving discovery disputes

Judge Scheindlin created a new seven factor test to evaluate the burden of a discovery request. She considered:

  1. The extent to which the request is specifically tailored to discover relevant information
  2. The availability of such information from other sources
  3. The total cost of production, compared to the amount in controversy
  4. The total cost of production, compared to the resources available to each party
  5. The relative ability of each party to control costs and its incentive to do so
  6. The importance of the issues at stake in the litigation
  7. The relative benefits to the parties of obtaining the information

In essence, she articulated more clearly concerns about both relevance and proportionality that have become cornerstones of contemporary e-discovery practice—ones that in fact have been called into heightened perspective not just in the 2006 FRCP amendments, but also in the 2015 amendments that came to bear over 12 ½ years after this ruling was written. Few issues or concepts are more critical to successful information governance and e-discovery processes than proportionality, so to celebrate this fifteenth anniversary of Zubulake I you might want to refresh your acquaintance with key concepts in proportionality by reviewing our case law white paper on proportionality, No More Diminishing Returns.

This article (and author) owes a debt of gratitude to Bruce Douglas and Daniel Ballintine for their excellent presentation, Electronic Discovery: Lessons from Zubulake from 2006. 

[View source.]

Written by:

Exterro, Inc.

Exterro, Inc. on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.