Tag:Format Of Production

1
Thorne Research Inc. v. Atl. Pro-Nutrients, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-784, 2016 WL 1122863 (D. Utah Mar. 22, 2016)
2
Kissing Camels Surgery Center, LLC v. Centura Health Corp., No. 12-cv-03012-WJM-NYW, 2016 WL 277721 (D. Colo. Jan. 22, 2016)
3
Sky Med. Supply Inc. v. SCS Support Claim Serv. Inc., No. 12- 6383, 2016 WL 4703656 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2016)
4
Midwest Feeders, Inc. v. The Bank of Franklin (S.D. Mississippi, 2016)
5
Gade v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (District of Vermont, 2016)
6
LBBW Luxemburg S.A. v. Wells Fargo Sec. LLC (Southern District of New York, 2016)
7
Stormo v. City of Sioux Falls, No. 12-04057 (D. S.D. Feb. 19, 2016)
8
SEC v. CKB168 Holdings Inc. (E.D.N.Y., 2016)
9
Granados v. Traffic Bar and Restaurant, Inc. (S.D.N.Y., 2015)
10
Lutzeier v. Citigroup Inc., No. 4:14-cv-00183-RLW, 2015 WL 430196 (E.D. Mo. Feb 2, 2015)

Kissing Camels Surgery Center, LLC v. Centura Health Corp., No. 12-cv-03012-WJM-NYW, 2016 WL 277721 (D. Colo. Jan. 22, 2016)

Key Insight: Where Plaintiffs objected to Defendants? ?duplicative? requests and claimed they had already produced responsive documents but provided Defendants with no guidance as to where such documents could be found within the voluminous production, the court acknowledged that it would ?ordinarily? conclude that Plaintiffs had no obligation to identify responsive documents but, citing the volume of data at issue, the ?asymmetry of information regarding the production between Plaintiffs,? the time the case had been pending, and the fact that additional discovery would be required, the court concluded that Plaintiff should provide additional information and ordered that Defendants would be permitted to identify ten categories of requested documents that Plaintiffs claimed to be duplicative and that Plaintiffs must then identify documents responsive to those requests

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Sky Med. Supply Inc. v. SCS Support Claim Serv. Inc., No. 12- 6383, 2016 WL 4703656 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2016)

Key Insight: Magistrate judge denied defendant?s motion to compel plaintiff to organize and label its document production ?so that it corresponds to the categories in the request? because the discovery documents were immediately available for inspection at plaintiff counsel?s office in electronic format already organized, identifiable, and searchable by claim number; defendants needing only to execute claims number searches to identify documents. Thus, the court concluded that unless and until an inspection is undertaken and shown to be unduly burdensome, the plaintiff?s offer to permit inspection of database comports with ?both the letter and spirit of rule 34.?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Gade v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (District of Vermont, 2016)

Key Insight: When the productions of underlying information (exact Excel formulas in this case) may disclose proprietary information, a supplemental disclosure explaining the underlying reasons may be a suitable replacement

Nature of Case: Automobile insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Excel spreadsheet formulas

Keywords: Excel, formulas, moot, metadata, award of sanctions, expenses, fees

View Case Opinion

LBBW Luxemburg S.A. v. Wells Fargo Sec. LLC (Southern District of New York, 2016)

Key Insight: Non-responsive documents should not be produced, even if redacted, and privilege or some sort of reason must be asserted for redactions to be proper

Nature of Case: Fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents generally

Keywords: redactions, bloomberg, non-responsive

View Case Opinion

SEC v. CKB168 Holdings Inc. (E.D.N.Y., 2016)

Key Insight: are the defendants acting in bad faith by not confirming that evidence doesn’t exist or was it not preserved, in that case is it sanctionable

Nature of Case: violation of Securities act, violation of the exchange act and rule 10b-5, unregistered securities offerings

Electronic Data Involved: “back office data” information as to whether defendants explored public offering

Keywords: bad faith, sanctions, spoliation, public offering

View Case Opinion

Granados v. Traffic Bar and Restaurant, Inc. (S.D.N.Y., 2015)

Key Insight: if sanctions can be granted for inconsistent and incomplete response from opposing party

Nature of Case: violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law

Electronic Data Involved: initial interrogatories and verifications

Keywords: spoliation, sanctions, default judgment, defunct business, unreachable party

View Case Opinion

Lutzeier v. Citigroup Inc., No. 4:14-cv-00183-RLW, 2015 WL 430196 (E.D. Mo. Feb 2, 2015)

Key Insight: Addressing Plaintiff?s motion to add custodians, the court granted the motion, in part, but declined to compel the addition of high-level executives absent a showing that they had ?unique or personal knowledge of the subject matter that warrants their information?; Court found that the current ?search criteria adequately ensure[d]? the production of relevant documents and declined Plaintiff?s request for additional search terms except the phrase ?consent order? where confusion existed as to the existence of ?other? consent orders relevant to the case; where plaintiff was unsatisfied with Defendant?s production of more than 46,000 documents ?without providing any indication as to which documents are responsive to which of Plaintiff?s fifty-eight (58 ) enumerated requests,? but where the defendant represented that their production was ?fully text-searchable and contain[s] metadata permitting Plaintiff to identify, among other things, the custodians of the document, recipients, date and other key information,? the court found that the production was ?in a reasonably useable form or forms and/or the production is searchable, sortable and paired with relevant metadata? and thus was compliant with the parties? ESI agreement and with Rule 34

Nature of Case: Wrongful discharge; Age Discrimination; Dodd Frank; Sarbanes-Oxley

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

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