Tag:Format Of Production

1
Peterson v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2008 WL 1930453 (C.D. Ill. May 1, 2008)
2
Canon U.S.A., Inc. v. S.A.M., Inc., 2008 WL 2522087 (E.D. La. June 20, 2008)
3
L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, 2008 WL 2073958 (E.D. Cal. May 14, 2008)
4
E.E.O.C. v. Outback Steakhouse of FL, Inc., 2008 WL 2410415 (D. Colo. June 11, 2008)
5
Viacom Intern. Inc. v. Youtube Inc., 2008 WL 2627388 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2008)
6
Kayongo-Male v. S.D. State Univ., 2008 WL 2627699 (D.S.D. July 3, 2008)
7
Bray & Gillespie Mgmt. LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2008 WL 2609719 (M.D. Fla. June 30, 2008)
8
Goshawk Dedicated Ltd. v. Am. Viatical Servs., LLC, 2008 WL 2901864 (N.D. Ga. July 23, 2008)
9
Mich. First Credit Union v. CUMIS Ins. Soc., Inc., 2008 WL 2915077 (E.D. Mich. July 22, 2008)
10
Mon River Towing, Inc. v. Indus. Terminal & Salvage Co., 2008 WL 2412946 (W.D. Pa. June 10, 2008)

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

Canon U.S.A., Inc. v. S.A.M., Inc., 2008 WL 2522087 (E.D. La. June 20, 2008)

Key Insight: Where owner of defendant SAM admitted that boxes of SAM’s files and SAM’s server were stored in his home, but he had not affirmatively searched the boxes or server on his own for responsive information, and indicated, rather, that his wife and son looked through the documents when they could, court found discovery responses insufficient and ordered SAM to provide supplemental responses within 15 days; court further ordered SAM to hire a qualified third-party forensic computer specialist to conduct a search of SAM’s computer server since it was unclear whether owner?s son had the technological know-how to conduct a comprehensive search and owner had treated discovery requests ?lackadaisically?

Nature of Case: Breach of Dealer and Security Agreements

Electronic Data Involved: Paper and electronic documents, computer server

L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, 2008 WL 2073958 (E.D. Cal. May 14, 2008)

Key Insight: Where defendants converted ESI from their original format, which had been searchable and sortable, into PDF files which did not have these capabilities, court cited Advisory Committee Notes to the 2006 amendment to FRCP 34(a)(1)(A) and found that defendants violated Rule 34 by producing documents which were not searchable or sortable, notwithstanding that plaintiffs did not request the documents in native electronic format; court ruled on various other discovery disputes and awarded plaintiffs monetary sanctions in light of defendants’ “purposeful foot dragging on discovery” and resulting prejudice to plaintiffs

Nature of Case: Class action lawsuit regarding California’s treatment of juvenile wards and parolees

Electronic Data Involved: Databases and other ESI

E.E.O.C. v. Outback Steakhouse of FL, Inc., 2008 WL 2410415 (D. Colo. June 11, 2008)

Key Insight: Where information requested was relevant to EEOC?s claim, and defendants failed to provide concrete substantiation of the alleged burden, either in terms of manpower, hours, or financial resources that would be required to compile it, court ruled that, even though EEOC requested information in electronic database form, defendants’ answers were not restricted by their electronic record-keeping system; court ordered defendants to make a good faith effort to compile supplemental information from all available sources

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Employment records and information

Viacom Intern. Inc. v. Youtube Inc., 2008 WL 2627388 (S.D.N.Y. July 2, 2008)

Key Insight: Ruling on parties? cross-motions regarding production of various types of ESI sought by plaintiffs, court denied motion to compel source code given its value and secrecy and plaintiff?s failure to make proper preliminary showing justifying production; court further denied motion to compel production of schema for Google?s advertising database, but granted motion to compel as to data from YouTube logging database and schema for Google Video Content database

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Databases, computer source code which controls both the YouTube.com search function and Google’s internet search tool ?Google.com? and source code for YouTube’s ?Video ID? program

Kayongo-Male v. S.D. State Univ., 2008 WL 2627699 (D.S.D. July 3, 2008)

Key Insight: Where defendant argued it produce in hard copy format (Excel spreadsheets) all the information that defense expert relied on in creating his regression models, court ordered defendant to produce raw data in electronic format but denied plaintiff?s request to depose defense expert or persons responsible for compiling the information

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic copy of raw, unfiltered data from defendant’s human resource database which defense expert used to conduct regression analysis

Bray & Gillespie Mgmt. LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2008 WL 2609719 (M.D. Fla. June 30, 2008)

Key Insight: Where third party responded to subpoena stating that responsive information was contained in previous productions by plaintiffs but refused to identify which documents previously produced came from its files, court ordered third party to produce Rule 30(b)(6) witness with most knowledge of how third party maintained its business records, both in paper and in electronic form; court further ordered that deposition be conducted at third party?s regular place of business and, if responsive to questions, third party?s corporate representatives must allow defense counsel and its IT expert or consultant to view third party?s computer(s) to determine how information was organized and stored therein; court further ordered third party to produce ESI in native format with metadata

Nature of Case: Insurance coverage and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified ESI

Mon River Towing, Inc. v. Indus. Terminal & Salvage Co., 2008 WL 2412946 (W.D. Pa. June 10, 2008)

Key Insight: Nothing that in its estimation, “‘a print-out of computer data’ is significantly different than the report requested here by Defendant or any ‘analyses’ of documents,” court ruled that Rule 34 does not require responding party to create or generate responsive materials in specific form requested by the moving party; however, to extent that party merely requested computer print-out of information at issue, such print-outs fell within bounds of Rule 34 and should be produced

Nature of Case: Negligence, lost profits and indemnification

Electronic Data Involved: Computer printouts

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