Tag:Format Of Production

1
United States v. Perraud, 2010 WL 228013 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2010)
2
Mack v. HG Gregg, Inc., 2010 WL 342545 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 29, 2010)
3
In re Venom. Inc., 2010 WL 892203 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Mar. 9, 2010)
4
Covad Commc?n Co. v. Revonet, Inc., 267 F.R.D. 14(D.D.C. 2010)
5
Bellinger v. Astrue, 2010 WL 1270003 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2010)
6
Camesi v. Univ. Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 2010 WL 2104639 (W.D. Pa. May 24, 2010)
7
Aponte-Navedo v. Nalcom Chem. Co., 268 F.R.D. 31 (D.P.R. 2010)
8
Freihammer v. Powers, 2010 WL 2362957 (Minn. Ct. App. June 15, 2010)(Unpublished)
9
State v. Grenning, 234 P.3d 169 (Wash. 2010)
10
Chapman v. Gen. Board of Pension & Health Benefits of the United Methodist Church, 2010 WL 2679961 (N.D. Ill. July 6, 2010)

United States v. Perraud, 2010 WL 228013 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2010)

Key Insight: Despite finding Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 did not require the government to identify the evidence upon which it intended to rely at trial where defendants claimed the government had attempted to overwhelm them by providing access to a database containing millions of documents, and despite government?s production of an index to the database and directions to the materials it deemed most relevant, magistrate recommended the government be ordered to provide defendants with an exhibit list and hard copies of the exhibits ten days before trial, for the government to supplement that list as necessary, and for the government to comply in good faith where the government had previously offered to supply the same

Nature of Case: Conspiracy to destroy records and destruction of records

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Mack v. HG Gregg, Inc., 2010 WL 342545 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 29, 2010)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff moved to compel re-production of electronic spreadsheet in its ?original format? i.e. without a lock that prevented the manipulation of data, the court rejected defendants? arguments that plaintiffs request be denied because 1) the original format was protected work product, 2) the parties never agreed to a format of production, and 3) re-production would be unduly burdensome and granted plaintiffs? motion to compel

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheet

In re Venom. Inc., 2010 WL 892203 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Mar. 9, 2010)

Key Insight: Court found plaintiff primarily responsible for breakdown of discovery for failing to produce requested ESI or to provide satisfactory explanation of the problems precluding production but declined to order exclusion of all evidence supporting ?diminution in value? claim where plaintiff produced substantial financial information and produced the requested ESI in hard copy, where plaintiffs violated no court order, where the failure to produce was temporally limited to two ?short periods of time?, and where plaintiffs apparent ability to produce the requested ESI would prevent any prejudice; court gave defendant option of receiving ESI on ?searchable CD? or receiving the computer on which the ESI was stored for expert examination

Nature of Case: Adversary proceeding in bankruptcy

Electronic Data Involved: Financial data in electronic format

Covad Commc?n Co. v. Revonet, Inc., 267 F.R.D. 14(D.D.C. 2010)

Key Insight: Court declined to compel production of non-email ESI in native format where defendant previously produced the information sought in hard copy, reasoning that native production is not required by the rules and that the documents, previously produced in hard copy, were in a sufficiently usable format absent a showing that the metadata would ?yield an answer that the hard copy will not?; court also recognized obligation to seek ?just, speedy, and inexpensive? adjudication and to limit burdensome discovery where defendant represented significant hardship to re-produce in native format

Nature of Case: Misappropriation and conversion of trade secret information

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Bellinger v. Astrue, 2010 WL 1270003 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2010)

Key Insight: In an opinion addressing a number of discovery issues, the court declined to compel production of email in native format where defendant provided a ?reasonable explanation? for why it chose to produce in hard copy, namely, because ?they could more easily be reviewed for responsiveness and privilege?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Freihammer v. Powers, 2010 WL 2362957 (Minn. Ct. App. June 15, 2010)(Unpublished)

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse discretion by denying motion for re-production of emails in electronic format where appellant was ably to testify that she did not send the emails at issue and that they were fabricated and thus the hard copy emails were admitted in a ?reasonably useable format? as is required by the rules

Nature of Case: Petition for harassment restraining order

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

State v. Grenning, 234 P.3d 169 (Wash. 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendant?s forensic expert?s access to the hard drives seized from defendant was limited by protective order which allowed access only in a county building, using county equipment, the Supreme Court affirmed reversal of defendant?s conviction for 20 counts of possession of child pornography on the grounds that he was denied meaningful access to the hard drives and held that the appropriate test ?under these circumstances? was the ??overwhelming untainted evidence test? to demine whether a trial court?s erroneous ruling requires reversal?

Nature of Case: Possession of child pornography and related charges

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives seized from defendant

Chapman v. Gen. Board of Pension & Health Benefits of the United Methodist Church, 2010 WL 2679961 (N.D. Ill. July 6, 2010)

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to specify a form of production in its initial discovery requests and where defendant produced documents in hard copy, court found that no reproduction of electronic documents was required and rejected defendant?s arguments that plaintiff had failed to uphold her discovery obligations

Nature of Case: Violations of American’s with Disabilities Act

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic versions of previously produced hard copy

Copyright © 2026, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.