Electronic Discovery Law

Posted at 9:20 AM on September 11, 2006 by K&L Gates

Party Not Required to Produce Financials in Searchable Electronic Format, In Part Because Requesting Party Had Refused Similar Request

OKI Am., Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 2006 WL 2547464 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2006)

In this patent litigation, AMD moved to compel the production of certain financial documents, complaining that OKI had produced a disk containing 29,000 pages of financial materials which “were not in electronic format and not searchable.” In response, OKI expressed “outrage” that AMD was demanding exactly the kind of documents that AMD itself refused to provide. OKI stated it was forced to spend almost $25,000 to convert AMD’s documents into a searchable electronic format, after AMD produced its documents in unsearchable "tiff" format. Further, AMD had produced its materials “in a form that did not correspond to OKI's infringement contentions and not in Microsoft Excel, as OKI had requested.”

OKI stated it had provided its financials in exactly the same "tiff" format in which AMD produced its financials and that AMD must be prepared to spend money to convert it, the same way OKI had to. Further, OKI reminded the court that in the case AMD relied on, Super Film of America, Inc. v. UCB Films, 219 F.R.D. 649 (D. Kan. 2004) the requesting party had itself provided the requested material in electronic format, something that AMD had repeatedly refused to do.

Accordingly, the court denied the motion in part because AMD was “asking OKI to do something AMD itself refused to do.” The motion was denied on the additional grounds that it was untimely filed.

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL

Comments (0) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end

This blog/Web site is made available by the contributing lawyers or law firm publisher solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general legal principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. By using this blog/Web site, you understand that there is no attorney client relationship intended or formed between you and the blog/Web site publisher or any contributing lawyer. The blog/Web site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.

K&L Gates includes lawyers practicing out of more than 40 fully integrated offices located in North America, Europe, Asia, South America, and the Middle East, and represents numerous GLOBAL 500, FORTUNE 100, and FTSE 100 corporations, in addition to growth and middle market companies, entrepreneurs, capital market participants and public sector entities. For more information about K&L Gates or its locations and registrations, visit www.klgates.com.

Portions of this Web site may contain Attorney Advertising under the rules of some states. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

e-Discovery Analysis & Technology group at K&L Gates, offering services related to ediscovery, review of electronic documents, electronic discovery and electronic evidence discovery.
K&L Gates LLP
925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, Washington 98104-1158
p. 206.623.7580, f. 206.623.7022