When the court issued the July 6, 2004 order requiring the City to pay its fair share of the expenses plaintiffs incurred to compile the database, the court meant for the bill to be calculated based on the number of hours Mr. Soule and the paralegals spent on the project, multiplied by their hourly billing rates, plus other costs, if any.
In deciding to order the parties to split the expenses—i.e.,
the costs—incurred to compile the database, the court found Fauteck v. Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., 91 F.R.D. 393, 399 (N.D.Ill.1980) and Williams v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 119 F.R.D. 648, 651 (W.D.Ky.1987) instructive. Portis, 2004 WL 1535854, at *5. Both Fauteck
involved compilations of facts in computer databases that were prepared for trial. Fauteck, 91 F.R.D. at 398 (employment discrimination case in which defendant created a database compiling facts selected from its personnel records); Williams, 119 F.R.D. at 650 (employment discrimination case in which EEOC created a database of facts gleaned from defendant's employment records). As in the case at bar, in both Fauteck
the party seeking its opponent's database had access to all of the underlying records that were used to create the database, so the party had the ability to create its own database. Fauteck, 91 F.R.D. at 398; Williams, 119 F.R.D. at 649–50. Like this court, the Fauteck
courts compelled production of the databases because creating a similar database from scratch would have been a “time-consuming, duplicative and expensive effort.” Williams, 119 F.R.D. at 650; Fauteck, 91 F.R.D. at 398. Regarding cost-sharing, in Fauteck,
the court compelled production of the database “contingent on plaintiffs' willingness to reimburse defendant for 50% of compilation costs.” Fauteck, 91 F.R.D. at 399. Likewise, in Williams,
the court ordered the defendant to pay its “ ‘fair portion of the fees and expenses incurred’ in the past by the [EEOC] for the work of the [EEOC's] expert in encoding the requested data and formulating the database.” Williams, 119 F.R.D. at 651. Neither the Williams
court nor the Fauteck
court found it necessary to explain what “costs” or “fees and expenses” meant. In this case, however, the parties have requested further explanation.