Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

AFFIDAVIT OF c.

scan AMANN

Suite of Connecticut )
) ss: Stamford
Counly of Fairfield )

I, C. Scott Amann, being first duly sworn. hereby depose and say:

l. I om over eighteen (18) years of ngc. I mukc lhis Affiduvil based upon personal

knowledge and upon information gathered through discussions with other WWE employees and

counsel.

2. l submit this Affidavit in accordance with Connecticut General Stotules 52-

148e(t)(2) to set forth the estimated costs of compliance with the subpoena ("Subpoena") served

on WWE in connection with the action styled Amann v. Brnok\, Case No. 20l5 L 001752,

pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.

3. I am employed as the Vice President, Legal and Business Affairs of World

Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. ("WWE"). In that capacity, I provide legal counsel to, among

other areas, the WWE lalent relations depnrtment and I have gained direct nnd substantiul

knowledge of such areas of WWE's business, including litigation involving talent and fonner-

talent.

4. As part of my duties and responsibilities for WWE, I have managed WWE's

response to the Subpoena. Jn that connection, J have reviewed the requests of the Subpoena with

oulsidc counsel and, based upon my knowledge of WWE's corporate operations und of lhc cosls

to identify, collect, review, and produce documents nnd electronically stored information ("ESI")

in response to discovery requests in other litigation, I outline below estimates of the burdens and

costs associated with complinnce with the Subpoena.


Summnry of Burdens and Costs of Complying wjth the Subooenn

5. While the costs of compliance with the Subpoena are difficult to quantify and

estimate. they are directly linked to the breadth of the Subpoena's requests. In particular,

compliance with the Subpoena would require WWE to collect, process, and review ESI

maintained by numerous WWE employees. Bosed on the company's experience with

responding to discovery requests in other litigation, as more fully set forth below, it is reasonable

to estimate thnt the total costs us!K>ciated with collecting, processing. and reviewing ESI

potentially responsive to the Subpoena would range between SI 82.650 and $443,650. As further

set forth below. this estimate of costs is conservative in thnt it does not include other known, yet

more difficult to quantify and cstimutc, costs involved in complying with the Subpoena.

Burdcps and Costs Associated wjth Collecting and Processing Potentially Responsive E-Mail

6. In response to the requests of the Subpoena, WWE would need to identify, collect

and process emoiJ from identified employee-custodians. Based on the breadth and subject

matters of the requests of the Subpoena, WWE has identified twenty custodians who may

possess potentially responsive e-mail. Due to the architecture nnd cupnbi!ities ofWWE's email

management system, WWE would need to copy and export those custodians archived email

boxes (maintained inn commercial archiving system called Enterprise Vault) in order lo process,

search and review such e-mail for potentially responsive records.

7. WWE estimates that the data volume nssocinted with the e-mail in those

custodians' archived e-mail boxes would totul approximately 218 GB of dutu.

8. Once exported to a portnble hurd drive, WWE would need to provide the exported

c-muil data to its outside counsel for review. K&L Gates LLP ("K&L Gates") has served ns

WWE's principal outside counsel for nearly thirty years. Such representation has included

-2-
serving as lead trial counsel in every significant litigation to which WWF. hns been a porty over

that time. As WWE's principal outside counsel, K&L Gates has gained unique and extensive

knowledge ofWWE's business in genera.I wtd its infonnution technology policies and practices

in particular. In connection with representing WWE in litigation for nearly thirty ye11rs, K&L

Gates has hundled responding to numerous prior discovery requests including the collection,

processing und reviewing of ESI (including e-mail).

9. K&L Gates has provided WWE with the following quote for 11 "per-volume" rote

for processing collected ESI (including e-mail):

$50 per GB ofESI collected nnd imported into the processing system; and

$250 per GB of ESI remaining following de-duplication. date restriction, ond

0U1er means of automated culling (with the expectation that this remaining ESI set

would be queued for further searching nnd review).

I 0. Based on the volume of e-mnil data detected for the identified custodians and the

ESI processing rate, it is reasonable to estimate that the first portion of charges necessary for

processing this set of e-mail dota would be approximately $10,900.

11. In light of the exp!!rience of K&L Gates in processing simiJur sets of ESJ in

litigation, I am advised that processing likely will result in a reduced data set through dc-

duplication and date restriction tools. While it is difficult to estimate the extent of reduction that

may be achieved for this particular data set, based on historicaJ results, it is estimated that such

reduction could reduce the data set by forty to sixly percent. Accordingly, between 87 GB and

131 GB of e-mnil data would likely remain for searching and review.

-3-
12. Bnsed on this reosonnble assumption of reduction of the data set through

processing and the ESJ processing rote, it is reasonable to estimate that the second portion of

charges necessary for processing this e-mail dota would be between $21,750 nnd $32,750.

13. Therefore, it is reasonable to estimate that d1e total processing charges for the sel

of e-mail data at issue would range between $32,650 and $43,650.

Burdens and Costs Associated wilh Reviewing Potentia)ly Responsive E-Mail

14. In response to the requests of the Subpoena, WWE's outside counsel would also

need to review the resulting set of e-mail dnta after applying various search terms to identify

those records responsive to the Subpoena's requests as well as those records thnt ore responsive

but privileged. Based on K&L Gates' historical experience in other litigation, it is reasonable to

estimate that electronic searches would further reduce the data set remaining after processing by

seventy to eighty percent. Accordingly, following processing and electronic searching, it is

rensonnble to estimate that between 17 GB and 39 GB of e-mail dnta would remain for review.

15. By way of comparison, I nm advised thnt a common asswnption in electronic

discovery is that 1 GB of data is roughly equivaJent to twenty bankers' boxes of printed material

(although the actual equivalent in printed material would depend largely on the file types nnd

format of the data at issue).

16. Based on this assumption, the e-mail data remaining for review would roughly be

equivalent to between 340 and 780 bunkers' boxes of printed material. K&L Gates hos provided

WWE with an estimated cost r!lllge for the review of such volume of documents, which would be

dependent upon factors such as the total number of documents lo be reviewed, the complexity of

the document-;, and the amount of privileged communications. The estimate assumes lhe use of

K&L Gates' spcciuJly-trnined review attorneys, who work in its c-Discovery Analysis and
Technology, ore-DAT, Group. This review would include substantive and privilege review, but

would not include additional efforts nccessnry to prepare productions and an accompanying

privilege log if ordered by the Court. The estimated cost range provided by K&L Gates for the

anticipated n~view is between SI S0,000 and $400,000.

17. WWE also would need to incur certain costs associated with generating

productions of responsive, non-privileged records (including e-ma.il) and with generating a

privilege log that outlines records end information withheld on the basis of, inter alia, the

attorney-client privilege end the attorney work product doctrine. Due lo uncertainties in the

outcome of the review process, it is difficult for K&L Gates to reasonably quantify end estimate

nt this time the costs associated with these efforts. However. such costs would be in addition to

the estimated costs described in detail above.

Additional Burdens and Costs of Complying with the Subpocnu

l 8. Separately, WWE would need to collect, process, and review non-e-moil ESI,

hard copy documents, and audio-visual materials potentially responsive lo the requests of the

Subpocnu. Because no diagnostic tool is available to reasonably estimate the volume of such

materials without actually conducting 11 seurch, WWE has not attempted to quantify 11J1d estimate

those costs at this time. In particular, certain requests of the Subpoena would require WWE to

review hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of video footage for which there is no reasonable

way to search for the requested content. For example, Request No. 27 seeks "all video,

audiovisual end digital content or material made available to the public from January l, 2013

through the present in which Amann is identified by nume, is interviewed or makes any fonnal

or infonnal statements'' and Request No. 25 seeks "[a]ll photographs (including digital

photographs) of. including or depicting Brooks taken during the period from October l, 20 I3
lhrough January 31, 2014," which would require WWE to review every photograph taken of nny

talent during that period to determine if Brooks may even incidenuilly oppenr. Again, such costs

would be in addition to the estimated e-mail related costs described above.

19. Compliance with the Subpoena would require the involvement of employees from

various WWE business departments and its infonnalion technology department to assist in the

identification, collection, ond processing of potentinlty responsive records, including hard copy

records, ESI and audio-visual media. Such involvement would divert these employees' time,

attention, and resources away from pressing business needs.

Subsc~ed 11nd sworn to before me


this E day of March, 2016

JAHEf P. QOLE
Notary Public NOTARY PUBLIC
My Commission ExpiMijoMMISSION EXPIRES MARCH 31, 2019