Tag:Format Of Production

1
Beardsley v. All Am. Heating, Inc., 2007 WL 869959 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 20, 2007)
2
Armament Sys. & Procedures, Inc. v. IQ Hong Kong Ltd., 2007 WL 895836 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 21, 2007)
3
Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V. v. KXD Tech., Inc., 2007 WL 879683 (D. Nev. Mar. 20, 2007)
4
Perez-Farias v. Global Horizons, Inc., 2007 WL 991747 (E.D. Wash. Mar. 30, 2007)
5
Io Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc., 2007 WL 1113800 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2007)
6
Rebman v. Follet Higher Educ. Group, Inc., 2007 WL 1303031 (M.D. Fla. May 3, 2007)
7
O’Bar v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., 2007 WL 1299180 (W.D.N.C. May 2, 2007)
8
Gragg v. Int’l Mgmt. Group, 2007 WL 1074894 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2007)
9
Woodburn Const. Co. v. Encon Pacific, LLC, 2007 WL 1287845 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 30, 2007)
10
3M Co. v. Kanbar, 2007 WL 1725448 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2007)

Beardsley v. All Am. Heating, Inc., 2007 WL 869959 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 20, 2007)

Key Insight: Court ordered defendant to answer certain interrogatories regarding customers and projects and to produce “a complete unedited electronic copy of Defendant’s database” which contained the requested information

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Armament Sys. & Procedures, Inc. v. IQ Hong Kong Ltd., 2007 WL 895836 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 21, 2007)

Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiff to produce mirror image copies of hard drives at location of defendants’ computer forensics expert, since court saw no reason to treat such discovery differently than traditional (paper) discovery, any privacy concerns were addressed in the protocol proposed by defendants, and it was less burdensome than forcing defendants’ experts to conduct their testing at the site of plaintiff’s experts

Nature of Case: Patent litigation involving claims of forgery and fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Mirror image of hard drive

Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V. v. KXD Tech., Inc., 2007 WL 879683 (D. Nev. Mar. 20, 2007)

Key Insight: Court ordered defendants to organize and label documents to correspond with discovery requests, or provide an index, and to submit declarations by qualified computer technicians or forensic experts setting forth specific details of any lost or destroyed data or damaged hard drives; court reserved the option to appoint a neutral computer forensic expert as a special master to investigate and assess any claim by defendants that their computer servers or hard drives were damaged during the seizures or that electronic records were lost or destroyed

Nature of Case: Infringement litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents, hard drives

Perez-Farias v. Global Horizons, Inc., 2007 WL 991747 (E.D. Wash. Mar. 30, 2007)

Key Insight: Court denied defendants’ FRCP 60(b) motion for relief from discovery orders, and ordered defendants to comply with prior orders and, among other things, produce certain database in native format, and produce requested email and Excel spreadsheet

Nature of Case: Class action brought by farm workers

Electronic Data Involved: Database, email and spreadsheet

Io Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc., 2007 WL 1113800 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2007)

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel and denied defendant’s request to shift costs of production to plaintiff, since defendant provided no information about whether and how such information was “inaccessible” or any other information relevant to cost-shifting determination under Zubulake III; court encouraged parties to agree on most efficient means of production and noted that plaintiff had indicated willingness to provide high capacity storage devices

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Adult video content; website traffic information

Rebman v. Follet Higher Educ. Group, Inc., 2007 WL 1303031 (M.D. Fla. May 3, 2007)

Key Insight: Where defendant showed that there were more than 200 million sales transactions contained in database and that it would be necessary to create a special software program to capture the information requested by plaintiffs and translate the information into a meaningful and readable format, court sustained defendant?s objections of burdensomeness and overbreadth and denied motion to compel; court would allow plaintiff to serve new, more narrowly tailored requests for production but would first require parties to confer in good faith to discuss the form in which ESI should be produced and how to ameliorate the costs attendant to production of such information

Nature of Case: Third party breach of contract and unfair trade practices

Electronic Data Involved: Sales database

Gragg v. Int’l Mgmt. Group, 2007 WL 1074894 (N.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2007)

Key Insight: After weighing the four factors identified as relevant under the federal common law of waiver, and particularly given the casual nature of defendants’ efforts to insure against inadvertent disclosure, court found that inadvertent production of four privileged emails (of 200 total produced on CD-ROM) effected limited waiver; plaintiff’s counsel would be permitted to keep the privileged emails and to utilize them freely in connection with the pending litigation

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged emails

3M Co. v. Kanbar, 2007 WL 1725448 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2007)

Key Insight: Where 3M had responded to production request on a rolling basis by printing and copying documents (mostly from electronic sources) and placing documents into some 170 boxes available for inspection, court denied defense motion to compel 3M to ?organize? or ?itemize? the documents and instead ruled that, because it appeared that 3M did to some extent delay its production and because it was not onerous for 3M to do so, 3M would be required to produce all previously produced responsive ESI to defendant in an electronic and reasonably usable format

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI printed and produced in hard copy

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