Tag:Format Of Production

1
In re Celexa and Lexapro Prods. Liab. Litig., 2006 WL 3497757 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 13, 2006)
2
Advante Int’l Corp. v. Mintel Learning Tech., 2006 WL 3371576 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2006)
3
Palgut v. City of Colo. Springs, 2006 WL 3483442 (D. Colo. Nov. 29, 2006)
4
DE Techs., Inc. v. Dell Inc., 2006 WL 3500962 (W.D. Va. Dec. 4, 2006)
5
Christopher v. Tulsa Ambassador Hotel, L.L.C., 2006 WL 3626761 (N.D. Okla. Dec. 11, 2006)
6
Ryan v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 2006 WL 3497875 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2006)
7
Cornell Research Found., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 2006 WL 5097357 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2006)
8
Ky. Speedway, LLC v. Nat’l Ass’n of Stock Car Auto Racing, 2006 WL 5097354 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 18, 2006)
9
Williams, Cohen & Gray, Inc. v. CPS Group, Inc., 2006 WL 3316783 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2006)
10
Fryer v. Brown, 2005 WL 1677940 (W.D. Wash. July 15, 2005)

In re Celexa and Lexapro Prods. Liab. Litig., 2006 WL 3497757 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 13, 2006)

Key Insight: In stipulated order, parties agreed that plaintiffs would preserve hard drives used by plaintiffs and plaintiffs? decedents and that such hard drives would be imaged and analyzed pursuant to an agreed forensic examination protocol; that responsive ESI would be collected by defendants from defendants’ active IT environment and not from backup tapes absent exceptional circumstances, and that plaintiffs would defer to defendants as to the format of production

Nature of Case: Personal injury product liability

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives, ESI

Advante Int’l Corp. v. Mintel Learning Tech., 2006 WL 3371576 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2006)

Key Insight: Where defendant demonstrated that serious questions existed both as to the reliability and the completeness of materials produced in discovery by plaintiff, including the possible alteration of email, court concluded that forensic examination of defendant’s hard drives was warranted; court ordered counsel for the parties to meet and confer regarding a protocol for the imaging and subsequent production of responsive documents

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives; email

Palgut v. City of Colo. Springs, 2006 WL 3483442 (D. Colo. Nov. 29, 2006)

Key Insight: This order constitutes the parties? stipulated Electronic Discovery Plan and Order to Preserve Evidence, which includes definitions of various terms and sets out a number of discovery ?protocols?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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

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

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

Cornell Research Found., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 2006 WL 5097357 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2006)

Key Insight: Court found that litigation tactic employed by HP, in making such an extraordinary voluminous, twelfth hour production, was “disturbing,” but denied plaintiffs’ request that HP prepare a detailed index of material produced since it would be unduly harsh and potentially intrusive on attorney work product; court instead invited plaintiffs to seek additional, limited discovery if appropriate and noted tactic might be relevant to court’s declaring the lawsuit an exceptional case for purposes of awarding attorneys’ fees and costs in the event plaintiffs’ infringement claims were successful

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Over 38 gigabytes of ESI produced late in discovery

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

Fryer v. Brown, 2005 WL 1677940 (W.D. Wash. July 15, 2005)

Key Insight: Noting that a responding party “must cover the costs of gathering the requested item; not to cover the costs of reproduction absent a showing of good cause as to why the burden should be shifted,” court instructed plaintiff to provide hard copies of its website as defendant had requested, at defendant’s expense

Nature of Case: Copyright and trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Website pages

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