Format Of Production – Page 9 – Electronic Discovery Law

Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Kelt, Inc., No. 6:14-cv-740-Orl-41TBS, 2015 WL 1470971 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff produced documents ?en masse? without any indication of what was produced or what request the documents were responsive to and claimed that they were produced as kept in the usual course of business and thus in compliance with Rule 34, the court reasoned that a party who produces documents as kept in the usual course has the burden of proving they were in fact produced in that manner and that a party may not wait until a motion to compel is filed to provide that information and concluded that Plaintiff had not complied with the requirements of Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i) and ordered that Plaintiff must identify by Bates number which documents were responsive to each request

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Spilker v. Medtronic Inc., No. 4:13-CV-76-H, 2014 WL 1643258 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 13, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where ?Defendants provided Plaintiff with fully searchable documents, sortable by metadata fields, in a folder structure organized by custodian,? the court found this was ?sufficient to satisfy the requirements for document production of ESI under Rule 34? and declined to compel Defendants to provide an index

Nature of Case: Claims arising from death during medical procedure

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Cuker Interactive, LLC, NOo. 5:14-CV-5262, 2015 WL 11120890 (W.D. Ark. April 9, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where parties agreed to produce in native format but Defendant then loaded its information into a hosted database and indicated that Plaintiff could view the docs, including some metadata, but could only receive production of specified documents in a static image format, at a cost for each such ?exportation,? and where Defendant argued such production complied with Rule 26(f) and that the data was in a reasonably usable form, the court held the parties to their agreement, reasoning that ?[s]imply put, native format means native format? and also rejected Defendant?s security concerns, agreeing with Plaintiff that production on an external hard drive was acceptable; court?s order stated that parties would ?produce discovery from electronic or computer-based media directly to each other in native format, on external hard drives whenever possible.?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Arkansas River Power Auth. v. Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Grp., Inc., No. 14-cv-00368-CMA-NYW, 2015 WL 2128312 (D. Colo. May 5, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Addressing several disputes, court concluded that parties having agreed on an ESI production ?must only comply with Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(ii)? and that the question was therefore whether the defendant ?produced its ESI in the form in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms. The rule clearly requires one or the other, but not both.?; where defendant produced majority of its documents in a reasonably usable form (TIFF), court declined to compel production of additional metadata

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Moore v. Wayne Smith Trucking, Inc., No. 14-1919, 2015 WL 6438913 (E.D. La. Oct. 21, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court concluded that Facebook materials are discoverable but would not require Defendant to produce his username and password and instead ordered Defendant to provide his attorney with postings from the relevant time period to be reviewed by the attorney?and not the defendant?to identify responsive information

Nature of Case: Personal injury

Electronic Data Involved: Social network contents (e.g., Facebook, MySpace)

Truesdell v. Thomas No. 5:13-cv-552-Oc-10PRL, 2015 WL 2022991 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 30, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court denied Motion to Compel Production of Electronically Stored Data where plaintiff said that 1500 printed pages of defendant?s database usage history were inadequate under FRCP 34(e)(ii) because they were not easily searchable. Plaintiff sought to compel production of the electronic version of the data to include metadata, but the court said that the printed information was not as cumbersome as the plaintiff suggested because only a limited time period contained within the pages was relevant; the data did not originate from the defendant, so the defendant did not have the ability to manipulate the data to provide it only for the limited time period; and the plaintiff was unable to identify any information contained in the electronic version of the data that was not also contained in the printed pages.

Nature of Case: Privacy Rights

Electronic Data Involved: Database

FDIC v. Baldini, No. 1:12-7050, 2014 WL 1302479 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 28, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for protective order, rejecting plaintiff’s proposed protocol that would require defendants to supply search terms (which plaintiff would then apply to the ESI) and require defendants to pay ESI copying costs; court ordered plaintiff to fashion initial set of search terms and work with defendants to reach agreement on search terms to be used, and set out protocol to be followed by the parties for the production

Nature of Case: Breach of fiduciary duties, negligence

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

U.S. v. Capitol Supply, Inc., No. 13-mc-0373 (BAH), 2014 WL 1046006 (D.D.C. Mar. 19, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where government had requested production in specific electronic formats (Database, Access or Excel) but company produced materials in PDF format that lacked requested detail and was not searchable across multiple documents, court found production insufficient and noted that the fact that company’s databases lacked certain functionality did not relieve company from responding to subpoenas with responsive information in usable, searchable format and directed company to produce responsive information “in a format that is reasonably usable, which includes searchable, just as its databases are presumably designed to respond to search queries”

Nature of Case: Investigation by Office of the Inspector General re whether company violated the False Claims Act; government petitioned for summary enforcement of OIG supboenas to Capitol Supply, Inc.

Electronic Data Involved: Sales data, country-of-origin information

Virco Mfg. Corp. v. Hertz Furniture Sys., No. CV 13-2205 JAK(JCx), 2014 WL 12591482 (C.D. Cal. Fan. 21, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: The court granted Defendant?s motion to compel production of email attachments, noting that ?by failing to produce email attachments, plaintiff has effectively redacted, based upon relevance, portions of documents it otherwise apparently views to be discoverable/relevant/responsive to defendants? discovery requests.? The court further noted that Plaintiff ?offered no evidence that it would suffer any undue burden from producing such electronic data.?

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Green v. Monarch Recovery Mgmt., Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00418-SEB-MJD, 2014 WL 1631825 (S.D. Ind. Apr. 24, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendant produced PDF version of requested spreadsheet which was over 1,000 pages long when printed with only 50 pages that were not redacted, court ruled that spreadsheet must be produced in its native Excel format, explaining: 1) “One of the unique strengths of Excel software is the ability to implement calculations and formulae that are not evident in a PDF version, so merely a PDF imprint of the surface information is not sufficient,” 2) the ability to search the spreadsheet is essential to its usefulness, and 3) due to its structure, a printed or PDF version of a large Excel spreadsheet is “often useless” from an evidentiary standpoint

Nature of Case: Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Excel spreadsheet

Tag:Format Of Production