FRCP 34(b) Procedure or Format – Page 10

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

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

E.A.F.F. v. United States, No. SA-08-CA-124-XR, 2014 WL 1652598 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Rejecting plaintiff’s challenge to $65,000 for scanning expenses as taxable costs where discovery production was voluminous and parties had agreed that defendants would produce their responsive documents in electronic format, court ruled that scanning of documents to create digital duplicates amounted to “making copies of materials” under Section 1920(4); however, because invoices indicated that requested costs may include more than just scanning, court would allow defendants to supplement bill of costs to specifically identify which portion of invoice was for scanning/making copies or to clarify that the entire cost was, in fact, for scanning/making copies

Nature of Case: Unaccompanied alien minors brought action against Office of Refugee Resettlement alleging they were physically and sexually abused while in detention awaiting final adjudication of their immigration status

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic images of paper documents

Sexton v. Lecavalier, 11 F. Supp. 3d 439 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court declined to hold third party in contempt where failure to produce Gmail in native format was result of good faith (but mistaken) belief that Gmail emails cannot be produced in native format; opinion noted options for production of Gmail emails in native format

Electronic Data Involved: Gmail emails

FDIC v. Bowden, No. CV413-245, 2014 WL 2548137 (S.D. Ga. June 6, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where FDIC spent $614,000 to digitally scan about 2.01 terabytes of data or 153.6 million pages of documents after taking over failing bank, and before any written document requests were served, court evaluated parties? competing proposals for conducting e-discovery, discussed the governing standards for manner of document production, formatting issues, and cost-shifting for digital format conversion expenses, and ultimately approved protocol offered by FDIC; court further instructed that, in the event of any further ESI-protocol disagreement or objection to the court?s decision, the parties must first confer and attempt to craft a joint ESI protocol or consent order in light of the principles highlighted in the court?s ruling

Nature of Case: Bank receiver brought bank mismanagement case against 16 of bank’s former directors and officers

Electronic Data Involved: Records of failed bank

Nat?l Jewish Health v. WebMD Health Servs. Grp., Inc., No. 12-cv-02834-WYD-MJW, 2014 WL 2118585 (D. Colo. May 21, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff maintained emails in Enterprise Vault with journaling capabilities (which captures and stores all emails in one place) and all ESI produced was searchable, sortable, paired with relevant metadata and included Concordance load files (and where emails were also produced with their attachments), the special master found the production met the requirements of 34(b)(2)(E)(ii) and was both properly produced in the form in which it was ordinarily maintained and in a reasonably usable form and further found that although 34(b)(2)(E)(i) did not apply to ESI, the production also satisfied the traditional requirement to produce documents (which ESI is not) in the manner in which it is kept in the usual course of business; special master made clear that a custodian need not be an individual and that ?[a] company, through an IT department, can serve as the custodian of electronic files kept on company servers.?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

West Plains, LLC v. Retzlaff Grain Co., No. 8:13CV47, 2014 WL 2515198 (D. Neb. June 3, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where plaintiff produced thousands of documents on disc and in hard copy, and divided some of the electronic documents into files on the disc but otherwise provided no indices to guide defendants to responsive materials, court found plaintiff?s responses insufficient and ordered plaintiff to produce index or other tool to guide defendants to the documents responsive to each individual request for production

Nature of Case: Company sued competitor, and former employees who had resigned to join competitor, for misappropriation of confidential business information, tortious interference with business relationships, and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI produced on disc

Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Vistana Condominium Owners Assoc., No. 2:12-cv-01324-JAD-NJK, 2014 WL 2041950 (D. Nev. May 16, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendant produced documents as they were received from third parties and with metadata allowing plaintiff to identify the documents by bates range, file path, and document title, court found that the production ?largely complied? with Rule 34 and the obligation to produce documents as kept in the usual course of business and that sanctions were not warranted but also found that the responses created unnecessary obstacles to the plaintiff and ordered defendant to indicate whether the documents it produced were actually responsive, reasoning that plaintiff should not have to ?guess at which requests were responded to and which were not?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Melian Labs, Inc. v. Triology, LLC, No. 13-cv-04791-SBA (KAW), 2014 WL 4386439 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 4, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied defendant?s motion to compel production of all emails and spreadsheets in native format, since the parties? Joint Rule 26(f) Report was a stipulation and therefore Rule 34(b) did not govern their dispute; the parties? Joint Rule 26(f) Report did not require that all ESI be produced electronically but only stated that ESI may be produced in paper, PDF, or TIFF and that electronic files should be produced in native format when it was more practicable to do so; defendant failed to articulate why metadata was important to emails; and plaintiff had already produced some of its spreadsheets in native format (Excel) where the printouts were difficult to read

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email and spreadsheets

Teledyne Instruments, Inc. v. Cairns, No. 6:12-cv-854-Orl-28TBS, 2013 WL 5781274 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 25, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff sought to inspect Defendants? computers and devices based on discrepancies discovered between metadata produced by Defendants and metadata extracted by Plaintiff?s expert, court denied the motion upon the explanation that system metadata and application metadata are not always the same and where Plaintiff failed to adequately explain why the discrepancies were cause for concern; court undertook extended discussion of format of production issues related to production ?in the ordinary course of business? and found that Defendants? production of native files (both email and other ESI) with an accompanying spreadsheet providing additional information related to where the documents were kept and how they were organized was sufficient, but, as to ?converted files and non-ESI documents,? ordered a production log identifying to which request each was responsive;? court ordered Plaintiff to produce a categorical privilege log

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, conversion

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email, hard copy

Tag:FRCP 34(b) Procedure or Format