Format Of Production – Page 25 – Electronic Discovery Law

Autotech Techs. Ltd. P’ship v. Automationdirect.com, Inc., 2008 WL 783301 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where requesting party complained that information generated and produced in response to agreed-upon keyword search of ?Goldmine? database was inadequate and not rectified by index of customer information documents subsequently provided, and that additional information (such as dates) was needed, court ordered parties to confer about how date information could be retrieved and granted motion to compel only to the extent that requesting party?s consultant would be allowed to run his original protocol to determine if date information should have been produced in conformity with that protocol; costs to be borne by requesting party unless it appeared that date information had been wrongly withheld, in which case responding party would bear all of the costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees resulting from nonproduction of the information

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Goldmine customer relations management database

Kinexus Representative LLC v. Advent Software, Inc., 2008 WL 4379607 (Del. Ch. Sept. 22, 2008) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant produced ESI as TIFF images and plaintiffs sought order compelling compliance with RFP instruction to ?produce documents in electronic form in the most accessible, searchable, maneuverable and common medium available to [defendant],? arguing that documents must be produced in native file format with metadata or in searchable OCR format, court declined to hold that 2005 Court of Chancery Rules required OCR format or native file format, including metadata, without a particularized showing of need; court found defendant?s proposal to provide searchable ?extracted text? was acceptable compromise and ordered production of ?extracted text? contingent on plaintiffs? agreement to reimburse all of defendant?s related expenses given plaintiffs? failure to timely object to non-searchable TIFF format

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, unjust enrichment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

WIREdata, Inc. v. Village of Sussex, 751 N.W.2d 736 (Wis. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Wisconsin Supreme Court disagreed with certain of the court of appeals’ specific holdings, including: that municipalities denied open records requests of WIREdata and, thus, violated open records law; that PDFs were insufficient to comply with such open records requests; and that open records law required access to computerized database; decision of court of appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part, and cases remanded to trial courts

Nature of Case: Company sued municipalities under Wisconsin’s Open Records Law

Electronic Data Involved: Database containing property assessment records

Cartwright v. Viking Indus., Inc., 2008 WL 4283614 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where parties agreed to production of database materials but failed to reach mutual understanding regarding need for privilege log, court held that failure to produce log due to misunderstanding did not waive privilege; court rejected argument that providing log would be unduly burdensome and expensive and ordered production of privilege log within two weeks

Nature of Case: Class action product liability litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Armor Screen Corp. v. Storm Catcher, Inc., 2008 WL 5262707 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 17, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff produced materials relied on by its expert on DVD in .sav format but defendants alleged it was inaccessible, court held that .sav format was a ?reasonably accessible format? and declined to compel re-production; court?s reasoning included consideration that .sav was format in which expert originally considered the information and evidence that .sav files could be opened by standard ?statistical computer packages?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, “.sav” data

Huang v. Gateway Hotel Holdings, 2008 WL 2486030 (E.D. Mo. June 18, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court ruled that plaintiffs were not required to produce for forensic inspection their ?desktop computers, cell phones, e-mail machines, laptop computers, mobile phones, ESI storage media, handheld computers and personal digital assistants,? but ordered plaintiffs determine which plaintiffs owned such devices and to produce a list of names and equipment to defendant within 20 days, and defendant would be allowed to re-file the discovery request with a showing of need; court further ruled that defendant need not produce pay and time records in an accessible electronic format but gave plaintiffs leave to re-file motion upon a showing that defendant had not supplied all available pay and time records

Nature of Case: FLSA claims, retaliation

Electronic Data Involved: Computers, cell phones and ESI storage devices used by plaintiffs

CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., 2008 WL 4441920 (N.D. Ga. August 7, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff moved to compel production of essentially every document in defendant?s possession, failed to engage in meaningful meet and confer discussions, repeatedly ?filled the record with invective? and made misrepresentations to court, and where defendant had produced in native format over 1.4 million pages of documents as result of electronic search using plaintiff?s 102 search terms in addition to numerous versions of source code and paper documents, and was in substantial compliance with discovery at time of hearing, and where court had previously imposed cost shifting by ordering production of certain documents contingent upon plaintiff bearing $300,000 of defendant?s privilege review expense, court further ruled that defendant was entitled, under Rule 37(a)(5), to an additional $86,787 representing 75 percent of its attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with the discovery dispute

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI

Yu v. New York City Hous. Dev. Corp., 2008 WL 2152138 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Ruling on various discovery matters, court noted plaintiff?s belated complaint that documents were not produced in ESI format and defendants? offer to convert their document production into OCR files, ?a more searchable form than the PDF format it originally provided,? and ordered plaintiff to advise defense counsel within three days if he desired such conversion; court further noted that plaintiff?s request for email was overbroad and that he had failed to justify requiring defendants to undertake a large-scale search of their backup tapes; court further ordered plaintiff to return employer-issued laptop computer to defendant

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email, laptop

Koosharem Corp. v. Spec Personnel, LLC, 2008 WL 4458864 (D.S.C. Sept. 29, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Finding that forensic analysis of defendants? business and home computers was appropriate where plaintiffs presented evidence of specific problems that raised questions regarding accuracy, completeness and authenticity of defendants? email production, court articulated detailed 20-point protocol covering, inter alia, instructions for parties? retention of third party forensic expert, scope of forensic search, privilege review and cost-shifting

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, violations of trade secrets and unfair trade practices acts, and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Work and home computers containing both business and personal information; email

Peterson v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2008 WL 1930453 (C.D. Ill. May 1, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs’ request for sanctions, additional depositions and for an order compelling production of electronic data and signal plans in light of plaintiffs’ failure to diligently pursue such requests and failure to establish need for additional discovery at late stage of litigation; court granted plaintiffs opportunity to show that motion was substantially justified and deferred consideration of defendant’s request for expenses incurred in opposing motion

Nature of Case: Claims arising from collision between freight train and automobile

Electronic Data Involved: Data from event recorders and other components and equipment of the crossing signal system

Tag:Format Of Production