Format Of Production – Page 22 – Electronic Discovery Law

Mechling v. City of Monroe, 152 Wash. App. 830 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court of appeals vacated (in part) judgment of trial court and ruled former statute ?does not exempt disclosure of personal email addresses used by elected officials to discuss city business? and that plaintiff was entitled to the requested email messages without the personal email addresses redacted; court also held that there was no express obligation to produce email records in electronic format, but that statutory duty to ?provide the fullest assistance? obligated trial court to consider reasonableness and feasibility of electronic production on remand; redacted emails need not be scanned and produced electronically

Nature of Case: Complaint pursuant to Public Disclosure Act

Electronic Data Involved: Email addresses, emails

Triple-I Corp. v. Hudson Assocs. Consulting, Inc., 2009 WL 1210882 (D. Kan. May 1, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court declined to award sanctions for production of unreadable cds where there was no indication that the issue was discussed prior to the filing of the motion and no evidence as to who was at fault but ordered defendants to make the records available in a readable format and, if electronic copies were not readable, to print the materials for production; for defendants’ failure to produce documents pursuant to court order and for ?evasive and inappropriate? responses to requests for clarification about that failure, court ordered monetary sanctions against defense counsel personally where the court determined such responses were the result of her tactical decisions

Nature of Case: Interference with contractual relationship and other claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Palm Bay Int., Inc. v. Marchesi Di Barolo, S.P.A., 2009 WL 3757054 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Noting a lack of any indication that plaintiff objected to production in electronic format and highlighting the fact that electronic discovery is permitted under the Federal Rules, court ordered production of discovery in electronic format and directed the parties to confer to determine the best method of production; upon defendant’s assertion that plaintiff failed to produce certain relevant communications as evidenced by the production of previously unseen communications by a third party, court declined to impose sanctions absent evidence of bad faith but indicated a willingness to re-open depositions upon defendant?s submission of subjects to be pursued therein

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Artie?s Auto Body, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 2009 WL 1578251 (Conn. Super. Ct. May 7, 2009) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant?s response to plaintiffs? discovery requests encompassed as many as 20 supplemental responses over 5 years, including the production of 1,487,824 pages of electronically unsearchable ESI 5 years after plaintiffs? first request (which plaintiffs paid to convert to a searchable format), court found defendant?s efforts ?did not represent a good faith effort to comply with the rules of practice or the case management orders of this court? and violated ? 13-14(a) of the Practice Book and accordingly ordered sanctions including allowing re-deposition of witnesses at defendant?s cost, reimbursement of plaintiffs for conversion costs, and payment of plaintiffs? attorney?s fees

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Grand Trunk W. R.R. Co., 2009 WL 5151745 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 18, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court found plaintiff?s production of 1200 pages ?as they were kept in the normal course of business? was sufficient pursuant to Rule 34 where plaintiff ?identified the document custodians and the range of Bates number for each custodian?s set of documents, along with the date associated with document creation,? where documents were produced in the order they were found on each hard drive, and where email attachments were produced directly following the corresponding email; plaintiff?s failure to arrange emails chronologically was not fatal to plaintiff?s production

Nature of Case: Declaratory judgment action, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

QuinStreet v. Ferguson, 2009 WL 1789433 (W.D. Wash. June 22, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant responded to plaintiff?s requests for production by producing a link to the responsive electronically stored information and where the link appeared to be thousands of pages of raw code and the emails could not be separated from one another, court ordered re-production of the information in a reasonably readable format or for defendant to cooperate to allow conversion of the ESI by a third party, for defendant to number each email to indicate to which request it was responsive, and for a statement regarding whether production was complete

Nature of Case: Defamation, interference with contractual relations, and intentional interference with prospective economic damages

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails

Green v. Fluor Corp., 2009 WL 1668376 (M.D. La. June 11, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to request production of a photograph taken by cell phone in electronic format and later contested plaintiff?s format of production, court denied defendants? motion to compel production and inspection upon noting defendants? failure to contest the photos authenticity or to show that viewing the original would provide information not already in their possession and upon noting Rule 34?s instruction that a party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form

Electronic Data Involved: Photograph taken with cellular phone

Pom Wonderful LLC v. The Coca-Cola Co., No. CV 08-6237 SJO (FMOx), 2009 WL 10655335 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Defendant produced 138 emails whose attachments that were not linked, claiming it produced the documents in ?the normal course of business? and had no obligation to re-link the attachments. The court disagreed, stating that ?plaintiff must have the ability to identify which attachments belong to which emails.? Defendant argued it could not automatically re-link the emails with the attachments, but would have to ?employ a tedious manual process.? The court indicated Defendant ?cannot seek to preclude plaintiff from pursuing discovery based on a record-keeping system that is plainly inadequate.? The court found Defendant did not meet the burden to prove it would be unduly burdensome to re-link the message units and granted the motion (Defendant must provide data/software to allow Plaintiff to re-link or must re-produce the 138 emails with their attachments). The court denied the motion to compel Defendant to produce purchase and valuation documents, finding Defendant met its burden to show the requested information is not relevant to this case.

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Mancini v. Ins. Corp. of N.Y., 2009 WL 1765295 (S.D. Cal. June 18, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs responded to defendants? requests for production by producing 73 CDs containing the entire universe of documents from an underlying litigation, court held that plaintiffs ?cannot fulfill their discovery obligation?without referencing which specific documents were responsive to which specific request? and ordered plaintiffs to provide defendants with a list of documents responsive to each request

Nature of Case: Breach of insurance contract, failure to indemnify

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Boland, 2009 WL 2424448 (D. Colo. Aug. 6, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff responded to discovery by producing large quantities of documents on CD (which had been indexed and arranged by topic and subtopic) and directing defendants that the documents sought were contained thereon, court found the response was ?sufficient? as to the ?general requests? but that ?where Defendant asked for more specific information, Plaintiff is required to identify which document on the CDs in which loan files are responsive in order to comply with Rule 33(d)(1)? and ordered plaintiff to provide ?more complete and specific responses? to certain Interrogatories and Requests for Production

Nature of Case: Claims arising from alleged default on loan repayment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Format Of Production