Free Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01282-JJF Document 80-3 Filed O3/10/2006 Page1 of 4

Case 1:04-ev-01282-JJF Document 80-3 Filed 03/10/2006 Page 2 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
AES PUERTO RICO, I..P., )
I
Plaintiff. )
v. ) Civ. No. O4-1.282-QIJF
ALS’I’Ol\/I POWER, INC., i
Defendant.
.... ._... .._. T..l ____;._.Q)
DECLARATION OF DANIEL D. VVILLIAMS
I. DANIEL D. WILLIAMS. declare as follows:
I . I am an attorney with` Williams & Connolly LIP and I represent AES Puerto
Rico, LI". ("AES-P`R’”) in the above-captioned matter. I am. admitted pro hoc vice. This
declaration is based on my personal knowledge except where otherwise noted.
2. I accepted service of a December 21, 2004 subpoena issued by ALSTOM Power.
Inc. ("ALSTOM") to AES-PR. demanding production of documents in a lawsuit in which AES-
PR was not a party. I negotiated with /\LSTOM`s counsel, Jeffrey Regner, Esq., of Ober, Kaler,
Grimes. and Shriver, concerning, the scope of that subpoena. As part ofthose negotiations. on
April I2. 2005. I wrote to Mr. Regner and advised him that certain backup tapes of AES-PR`s
former e-mail system existed, but, "the tapes have never been . . . converted" "to a readable
format" and the cost to prepare them for production was estimated to "be in the hundreds of
thousands of dollars." The former e-mail system I referenced was AES-PR's "First Class" e—maiI
system. I have been informed that AES-PR stopped using the First Class e·maiI system in mid-
2002 and at that time began using Microsoti Outlook for e-mail.

Case 1:04-cv-01282-JJF Document 80-3 Filed O3/10/2006 Page 3 Or 4
3. ln light ot the cost involved in restoring the First Class backup tapes. the tapes
were never restored. in response to Al`.STOM’s non-party subpoena to AES-PR.
4. ln December 2005, the parties met and conferred regarding discovery in this
litigation. During that meeting, /\l..STOl‘~/l’s counsel asked whether AES·PR would restore the
backup tapes l had discussed previously with Mr. Regner from the former First Class e-mail
system. l explained to .Al..STOl\/l’s counsel that. in light ol` the extraordinary cost of doing so
and the Fact that the tapes pre—date the relevant timeframe of the events in dispute in this
litigation, AES—PR would d.o so only if ALSTOM would. pay for restoration and processing ot`
the backup tapes. ALSTOM declined to do so.
5. l received a letter from Al..STOM’s counsel on January 24. 2006 complaining
that, ata deposition of AES—PR°s corporate designee on document collection issues, according to
ALSTOM, the designee had not provid.ed adequate testimony concerning the cost to restore the
First Class backup tapes and accordingly ALS`? OM was ‘“demand[ing] that AES search its
sewers. archives and backup tapes for any and all ‘aesc.com’ e-mails" at its own expense. On or
about February l, 2006, l met and conferred by teleconference with Al,S”t`OM’s counsel
concerning his .1 anuary 24. 2006 letter and explained that I had provided the cost information to
Al .STOM’s counsel previously when responding to ALS‘I`OM’s non-party subpoena.
6. On February 9, 2006. counsel for ALSTOM wrote to me to say that ALSTOM
believed the information l had provided previously with respect to the non—party subpoena was
insutilicient.
7. ln response to ALS'l`OM’s request lor more detailed information, l confirmed the
cost estimates and, on February t5, 2006, wrote to counsel for ALSTOM. to transmit them, The
cost estimate to produce documents for half—a—dozen users was $75.000 to $200,000. l Further
2

Case 1 :04-cv-01282-JJF Document 80-3 Filed O3/10/2006 Page 4 Or 4
explained that it would take one-to—two months just to prepare the data tapes for review. and still
longer he fore documents on the tapes actually could be produced-
8. l had a teleconference with ALS'l`Ol\/l’s counsel on the afternoon ot’.l·`ehruary I5,
2006 alter Al .STOl\/l’s counsel had received my letter. On that teleconterence, I explained that
we were working with the industry leader in electronic discovery, Kroll—Ontracl<, and that Kroll-
Ontrack had advised that, in light of the obsolescence ofthe First Class e-mail system. there was
no way to expedite the restoration and retrieval ofthe inforrnation from the backup tapes. When
Al.‘STOM’s counsel responded that he believed his technical consultant would testify that the
process should not take so long, I said that, if ALSTOM’s vendor could restore the tapes more
quickly. ALSTOIVI should tell me who the vendor was so that AES—PR could consider using it.
9. /\LS'l`t')l\/l”s counsel never followed up with any proposal to expedite restoration
ofthe First Class backup tapes.
I declare under penalty of peri ury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best
of my infomation. knowledge and belief. Executed on this __,(Zth day of March. 2006. at
~$rG¤··3 ·T¢’~‘>*·"i /2n-zryb ézba
3