Tag:Format Of Production

1
Daewoo Elecs. Co. v. United States, 650 F. Supp. 1003 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1986)
2
United States v. Visa USA, Inc., 1999 WL 476437 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 7, 1999)
3
Georgia Emission Testing Co. v. Reheis, 602 S.E.2d 153 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)
4
In re Verisign, Inc. Sec. Litig., 2004 WL 2445243 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2004)
5
Glover v. Standard Fed. Bank, 2001 WL 34635710 (D. Minn. Nov. 9, 2001)
6
Williams v. DuPont, 119 F.R.D. 648 (W.D. Ky. 1987)
7
Hahn v. Minn. Beef Ind., 2002 WL 32667146 (D. Minn. Mar. 8, 2002)
8
Zhou v. Pittsburgh State Univ., 2003 WL 1905988 (D. Kan. Feb. 5, 2003)
9
United States v. First Data, 287 F. Supp. 2d 69 (D.D.C. 2003)
10
Hines v. Widnall, 183 F.R.D. 596 (N.D. Fla. 1998)

Daewoo Elecs. Co. v. United States, 650 F. Supp. 1003 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1986)

Key Insight: Zenith’s motion to compel granted, requiring production in usable form of SAS data sets, constituting final refined forms of data used to compute final results; court criticized government’s inordinately restrictive interpretation of its discovery obligations: “To say that the data sets into which the computer tapes were transferred are not governed by an order speaking of computer tapes is as if someone had said at the dawn of the era of typewriters that typed documents are not governed by a court order speaking of ‘writings.'”

Nature of Case: Proceeding to review Dept. of Commerce’s review of antidumping duty order regarding television sets

Electronic Data Involved: Data sets

United States v. Visa USA, Inc., 1999 WL 476437 (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 7, 1999)

Key Insight: Parties agreed to narrow the scope of archived email search, both in terms of the number of employees whose email was to be produced and the number of days per month for which that email was to be produced; defendants to bear cost of production ($130,000) initially, but court reserved decision about who ultimately would bear cost; court denied plaintiff’s request that defendant make its production available on CD-ROM

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Archived email

Georgia Emission Testing Co. v. Reheis, 602 S.E.2d 153 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004)

Key Insight: Trial court abused its discretion in ordering parties to share costs of requested discovery equally, and should have ordered the requesting party to bear full cost where requested information should have been available in the requesting party?s own records, and the request involved the creation of a report that otherwise did not exist, and had to be specially created by a nonparty contractor at significant cost

Nature of Case: Suit to recover fees improperly assessed pursuant to Motor Vehicle Emission Inspection and Maintenance Act

Electronic Data Involved: Special report extracted from massive database of information

Glover v. Standard Fed. Bank, 2001 WL 34635710 (D. Minn. Nov. 9, 2001)

Key Insight: Where evidence showed there was no feasible and economic electronic means by which certain data could be produced, court ruled that, to the extent defendants intended to introduce evidence related to such data at trial, defendants would be required to produce all such evidence, documentary, electronic or otherwise, upon which they intend to rely

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: Information regarding damages, offsets and class member eligibility

Williams v. DuPont, 119 F.R.D. 648 (W.D. Ky. 1987)

Key Insight: Employer entitled to discover, at its own expense, copies of database on computer disk, code books and user manual created by EEOC’s expert from information produced by employer to allow for effective cross-examination of EEOC’s expert; in addition, employer to pay “fair portion of the fees and expenses incurred” in the past by EEOC for the expert’s work in encoding the requested data and formulating the database

Nature of Case: Consolidated Title VII action brought by individual and EEOC

Electronic Data Involved: Database created by EEOC’s expert from information produced by employer

Hahn v. Minn. Beef Ind., 2002 WL 32667146 (D. Minn. Mar. 8, 2002)

Key Insight: Where, after months of discovery disputes, reports upon which defendant urged plaintiff to rely in lieu of full database turned out to be inaccurate, court denied plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment for discovery abuse and instead postponed trial so that defendant could produce accurate information; however, court imposed monetary sanctions against defendant representing plaintiff’s legal and expert fees for time spent working with inaccurate data

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Database, reports, electronic data

Zhou v. Pittsburgh State Univ., 2003 WL 1905988 (D. Kan. Feb. 5, 2003)

Key Insight: Motion to compel production of computer-generated salary data granted; court further ordered parties to preserve all relevant evidence including all data compilations, computerized data and other electronically-recorded information

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Computerized payroll records

United States v. First Data, 287 F. Supp. 2d 69 (D.D.C. 2003)

Key Insight: Scheduling and case management order provides, inter alia, that document requests shall be responded to and documents produced within ten days after service, and that parties will produce documents in either hard copy form, or, in the case of electronic documents, in the native electronic format (or a mutually agreeable format)

Hines v. Widnall, 183 F.R.D. 596 (N.D. Fla. 1998)

Key Insight: Granting plaintiff’s’ motion to compel production of computerized images of employment records which were created to facilitate review of the documents by geographically-dispersed defense counsel, court held that images did not constitute attorney work product since images did not contain mental impressions or legal theories and would not give plaintiffs insight into defense strategy or opinions; plaintiffs to pay only nominal copying costs and not portion of $250,000 imaging cost incurred by defendant

Nature of Case: Race discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Computerized images of employment records

Copyright © 2022, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.