Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. v. Superior Court

124 Cal. App. 4th 762, 21 Cal. Rptr. 3d 532 (2004)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal
124 Cal. App. 4th 762, 21 Cal. Rptr. 3d 532 (2004)

JL

Facts

Lexar Media, Inc. (Lexar) (plaintiff) sued Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. (Toshiba) (defendant) for misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair competition. Lexar served a request for the production of documents that sought email and other forms of electronically stored information, sometimes referred to as ESI. In response, Toshiba produced more than 20,000 pages of documents. Toshiba also disclosed that it had more than 800 backup tapes containing electronically stored information for the requested time period. Backup tapes usually hold a large amount of data that is loosely organized. Mining this data to discover relevant information is expensive and time-consuming because it usually requires restoring the tape, viewing the directories, and searching within the directories for specific files. An electronic-discovery specialist estimated that completely processing all the tapes would cost between $1.5 and $1.9 million. The specialist also estimated that processing a portion of the tapes surrounding key dates would cost approximately $200,000. Toshiba asked Lexar to share the cost of processing the tapes. Lexar refused and filed a motion to compel Toshiba to produce the information entirely at Toshiba’s expense. Lexar argued that, based on federal court decisions analyzing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Lexar should not be required to share the cost of processing the tapes. Toshiba argued that the federal analysis favored cost-shifting in this situation. The trial court granted Lexar’s motion to compel without explanation and did not require Lexar to pay any of the tape-processing costs. Toshiba appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Premo, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 744,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 744,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 744,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership