Connection lost
Server error
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: In an employment discrimination case, the court established an influential seven-factor test to determine how to allocate the high costs of restoring inaccessible electronically stored information (ESI) from backup tapes, ultimately splitting the cost 75/25 between the defendant and plaintiff.
Legal Significance: This landmark e-discovery case established the Zubulake seven-factor test for cost-shifting when producing inaccessible ESI. It also created a crucial distinction, holding that while restoration costs may be shared, the producing party always bears the cost of reviewing data for privilege and responsiveness.
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff Laura Zubulake sued her former employer, UBS Warburg LLC (“UBS”), for gender discrimination and retaliation. During discovery, Zubulake requested emails concerning her that were sent to or from five key employees. UBS determined that many of these emails existed only on backup tapes, a form of inaccessible electronically stored information (ESI). Restoring this data was projected to be expensive. To create a factual basis for a cost-shifting analysis under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, the court ordered UBS to restore a sample of five backup tapes selected by Zubulake. The sample restoration cost UBS over $19,000 (including vendor fees for restoration and search, plus attorney review time) and yielded approximately 600 responsive emails that had not been previously produced from more accessible sources. The total estimated cost to restore the remaining 72 tapes was $165,954 for restoration and searching, and $273,649 when including attorney review costs. Based on the sample, Zubulake moved to compel production of the remaining tapes at UBS’s expense, while UBS argued the costs should be shifted to Zubulake.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Under what circumstances should the significant cost of restoring and producing inaccessible electronically stored information be shifted from the responding party to the requesting party pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26?
Cost-shifting is appropriate, but UBS must bear the majority of the expense. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Under what circumstances should the significant cost of restoring and producing inaccessible electronically stored information be shifted from the responding party to the requesting party pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26?
Conclusion
This opinion provides a foundational framework for analyzing cost-shifting in e-discovery, creating Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exer
Legal Rule
To determine whether the cost of producing inaccessible electronically stored information should Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat
Legal Analysis
The court applied its newly articulated seven-factor test to determine the proper Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in volup
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Summary unavailable
No flash summary is available for this opinion.