Format Of Production – Page 31 – Electronic Discovery Law

DE Techs., Inc. v. Dell Inc., 2006 WL 3500962 (W.D. Va. Dec. 4, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Magistrate judge barred Dell from using certain documents at trial since plaintiff had no notice that the documents would be relied upon by Dell to support its defenses until the documents were specifically produced after the discovery deadline; court noted that, although the documents were among some 542,917 documents produced by Dell in electronic form and in a searchable format using a CaseData System, there was no evidence that Dell ever identified any of the documents provided on the CaseData System as responsive to any particular discovery request, and documents were neither produced as “kept in the ordinary course of business” nor as “ordinarily maintained”

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents produced in searchable database

Williams, Cohen & Gray, Inc. v. CPS Group, Inc., 2006 WL 3316783 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where defendant objected to providing hard copies of payment data and offered instead to make its database available to plaintiff in New York, court questioned prudence of offer and ordered production to take place in Houston, adding that parties should attempt to arrange for materials to be produced electronically and directing them to confer on method of production

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Oved & Assocs. Constr. Servs., Inc. v. Los Angeles County Met. Transp. Auth., 2006 WL 1703824 (Cal. App. June 22, 2006) (Nonpublished, Noncitable)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: No abuse of discretion to impose terminating sanctions against plaintiff after years of “discovery stonewalling” which culminated in the intentional destruction of evidence; plaintiff “regularly and routinely” disobeyed trial court orders and intentionally destroyed relevant accounting records on hard drive that was to be mirror imaged

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of funds

Electronic Data Involved: Accounting files on hard drive

Christopher v. Tulsa Ambassador Hotel, L.L.C., 2006 WL 3626761 (N.D. Okla. Dec. 11, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Magistrate judge was within his discretion to order that original discs be produced for computer expert’s inspection and copying so that all parties could be satisfied as to the authenticity and integrity of the copies provided

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Computer discs onto which plaintiff had copied various files of defendant

In re NYSE Specialists Sec. Litig., 2006 WL 1704447 (S.D.N.Y. June 14, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court ordered that all hard copy documents be produced on single page tiff images, uploadable on both Opticon and Concordance, and that all electronic documents be produced in their native format with all associated metadata

Nature of Case: Securities class action

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents

Ryan v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 2006 WL 3497875 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to timely disclose that it was withholding certain information from production and defense counsel made representations several times to plaintiff and to court that she had provided full and complete discovery, court: (1) granted motion to compel production of database in hard copy and in electronic form with specific redactions noted and included in revised privilege log; (2) extended discovery cut-off date; and (3) awarded sanctions solely against defense counsel (and not client) for costs of motion

Nature of Case: Fraud and medical malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: Database

India Brewing, Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co., 237 F.R.D. 190 (E.D. Wis. 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Plaintiff not entitled to production of defendant’s document retention policy and information regarding computer systems because such information was unnecessary and irrelevant to claims and issues in litigation; court further ruled that defendant’s production in hard copy format satisfied its obligations under the rules: “To the extent that the documents IBI sought in its requests are kept in hard copy in the usual course of business, IBI is not entitled to any other format. To the extent that those documents kept in electronic form have been printed out and organized and labeled to correspond with the document request, again IBI is not entitled to any other format.”

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, and negligent misrepresentation

Electronic Data Involved: Computer system information; document retention policy; electronic records

Forterra Sys., Inc. v. Avatar Factory, 2006 WL 2458804 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court ordered parties to meet and confer and agree upon appropriate procedures for plaintiff?s expert to view disputed source code in his office in electronic format, and ordered plaintiff to file a declaration from the expert agreeing to be bound by such procedures; parties further ordered to meet and confer and agree upon a procedure by which expert could seek to change the designation of portions of the source code from his eyes only to outside counsel only

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

A/R Roofing, L.L.C. v. Certainteed Corp., 2006 WL 2381610 (D. Kan. Aug. 16, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where the font used by plaintiff’s expert in his hard copy list of customer estimates and contracts was ?incredibly small? and difficult to read without magnification, thus rendering hard copy list inadequate, and because defendant’s request for production of material in electronic form was not otherwise prohibited by scheduling order, court granted defendant’s motion to compel the data in electronic format

Nature of Case: Plaintiff claimed loss of business resulting from letter sent by defendant

Electronic Data Involved: Customer list

Google Inc. v. Am. Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc., 2006 WL 2318803 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel plaintiff to produce a witness for further deposition under FRCP 30(b)(6), stating that, although defendant “may have some basis for complaining about the timing and manner in which the spreadsheet was produced,” defendant did not demonstrate that additional testimony was necessary regarding the spreadsheet, or that there was any information that was more readily obtainable from a live witness than from the spreadsheet which had been produced in native format

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Excel spreadsheet

Tag:Format Of Production