Case 4:08-cv-00074-GKF-FHM Document 181 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/04/2008 Page 1 of 25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

D.G., by Next Friend G. Gail Stricklin, et )

al., for themselves and those similarly )
situated, )
)
Plaintiffs, ) Class Action
v. ) Civil Action No. 08-CV-074-GKF-FHM
)
C. BRAD HENRY, in his official capacity as )
Governor of the State of Oklahoma, et al., )
)
Defendants. )

MOTION OF NAMED PLAINTIFFS TO COMPEL THE PRODUCTION OF E-MAILS

AND INITIAL DISCLOSURES RELATING TO NAMED PLAINTIFFS AND BRIEF IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION
Case 4:08-cv-00074-GKF-FHM Document 181 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/04/2008 Page 2 of 25

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .............................................................................................................iii

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .......................................................................................................1

STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................................3

ARGUMENT.....................................................................................................................................8

I. DHS DEFENDANTS SHOULD BE COMPELLED TO PRODUCE THE E-MAILS

OF NAMED PLAINTIFFS’ PAST CASEWORKERS AND SUPERVISORS THAT
RELATE SPECIFICALLY TO NAMED PLAINTIFFS AND TO MAKE THIS
PRODUCTION AT THEIR OWN COST.............................................................................7

A. DHS Defendants Should Bear Their Own Cost of Production Because the
E-Mails at Issue are Readily Accessible....................................................................9

B. Application of the Zubulake Factors Militates Against Any Cost-Shifting...............11

1. The extent to which the request is specifically tailored to discover

relevant information...................................................................................................12

2. The availability of such information from other sources.......................................13

3. The total cost of production compared to the amount in controversy ...................13

4. The total cost of production compared to the resources available to each

party ...........................................................................................................................13

5. The relative ability of each party to control costs and its incentive to do
so ................................................................................................................................13

6. The important of the issues at stake in the litigation .............................................14

7. The relative benefits to the parties of obtaining the information...........................14

II. DHS DEFENDANTS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO SERVE INITIAL DISCLOSURES

CONCERNING THEIR DEFENSES TO NAMED PLAINTIFFS’ CLAIMS UNDER
FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(1) .......................................................................................................16

CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................................18

ii
Case 4:08-cv-00074-GKF-FHM Document 181 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/04/2008 Page 3 of 25

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Tenth Circuit Cases

Abraham v. Intermountain Health Care Inc.,

461 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2006) .........................................................................................16

United Nuclear Corp. v. Cranford Ins. Co.,

905 F.2d 1424 (10th Cir. 1990) .........................................................................................16

Other Federal Cases

Adolph Coors Co. v. Am. Ins. Co.,

164 F.R.D. 507 (D. Colo. 1993) ........................................................................................17

Atmel Corp. v. Authentec Inc.,

No. C-06-02138 CW, 2008 WL 276393 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2008) ....................................8

Hightower v. Heritage Academy of Tulsa, Inc.,

No. 07-CV-602-GKF-FHM, 2008 WL 2937227 (N.D. Okla. July 29, 2008) ....................8

Mikron Industries, Inc. v. Hurd Windows & Doors, Inc.,

No. C07-532RSL, 2008 WL 1805727 (W.D. Wash. April 21, 2008) ..............................11

Peskoff v. Faber,
240 F.R.D. 26 (D.D.C. 2007)...............................................................................................8

Peskoff v. Faber,
251 F.R.D. 59 (D.D.C. 2008)......................................................................................... 9-10

PSEG Power New York, Inc. v. Alberici Constructors, Inc.,

No. 1:05-CV-657 2007 WL 2687670 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2007).........................................9

Semsroth v. City of Wichita,

239 F.R.D. 630 (D. Kan. 2006)..........................................................................9, 10, 12, 14

Super Film of America Inc. v. UCB Films, Inc.,

219 F.R.D. 649 (D. Kan. 2004)............................................................................................8

Sony Computer Entm’t Am., Inc. v. Nasa Elecs. Corp.,

249 F.R.D. 378 (S.D. Fla. 2008)........................................................................................17

Zhou v. Pittsburgh State Univ.,

No. 01-2493-KVH, 2003 WL 1905988 (D. Kan. Feb. 5, 2003)..........................................8

iii
Case 4:08-cv-00074-GKF-FHM Document 181 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/04/2008 Page 4 of 25

Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC,

217 F.R.D. 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) ............................................................................... passim

Xpedior Creditor Trust v. Credit Suisse First Boston (USA) Inc.,

309 F. Supp. 2d 459 (S.D.N.Y. 2003)................................................................................11

iv
Case 4:08-cv-00074-GKF-FHM Document 181 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/04/2008 Page 5 of 25
Case 4:08-cv-00074-GKF-FHM Document 181 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/04/2008 Page 6 of 25
Case 4:08-cv-00074-GKF-FHM Document 181 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/04/2008 Page 7 of 25
Case 4:08-cv-00074-GKF-FHM Document 181 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/04/2008 Page 8 of 25
Case 4:08-cv-00074-GKF-FHM Document 181 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/04/2008 Page 9 of 25
Case 4:08-cv-00074-GKF-FHM Document 181 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/04/2008 Page 10 of 25
Case 4:08-cv-00074-GKF-FHM Document 181 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/04/2008 Page 11 of 25
Case 4:08-cv-00074-GKF-FHM Document 181 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/04/2008 Page 12 of 25
Case 4:08-cv-00074-GKF-FHM Document 181 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/04/2008 Page 13 of 25
Case 4:08-cv-00074-GKF-FHM Document 181 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/04/2008 Page 14 of 25
Case 4:08-cv-00074-GKF-FHM Document 181 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/04/2008 Page 15 of 25
Case 4:08-cv-00074-GKF-FHM Document 181 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/04/2008 Page 16 of 25
Case 4:08-cv-00074-GKF-FHM Document 181 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/04/2008 Page 17 of 25
Case 4:08-cv-00074-GKF-FHM Document 181 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/04/2008 Page 18 of 25
Case 4:08-cv-00074-GKF-FHM Document 181 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/04/2008 Page 19 of 25
Case 4:08-cv-00074-GKF-FHM Document 181 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/04/2008 Page 20 of 25
Case 4:08-cv-00074-GKF-FHM Document 181 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/04/2008 Page 21 of 25
Case 4:08-cv-00074-GKF-FHM Document 181 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/04/2008 Page 22 of 25
Case 4:08-cv-00074-GKF-FHM Document 181 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/04/2008 Page 23 of 25
Case 4:08-cv-00074-GKF-FHM Document 181 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/04/2008 Page 24 of 25
Case 4:08-cv-00074-GKF-FHM Document 181 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/04/2008 Page 25 of 25