Key Insight: Where plaintiff produced ESI in .pdf format despite defendants? request for production in native format and later argued the term ?native format? was undefined, court found the term ?native format? was unambiguous and granted defendants? motion to compel the production (and re-production as was necessary) of ESI in native format
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court found plaintiff?s objections to defendants? production in pdf format ?without merit? where plaintiff failed to specify the preferred format of production and where absent such specification ?pdf format?is presumptively a ?reasonably useable form?? and similarly dismissed plaintiff?s substantive complaints regarding the production upon its determination that there was sufficient information for plaintiff?s expert to perform an analysis; court also declined to reconsider denial of spoliation sanctions in light of ambiguous deposition testimony regarding a possible delay in the implementation of a litigation hold and noted the absence of evidence that the gap in production was attributable to such delay
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Where parties disagreed regarding the format of production and the need to produce and re-produce ESI with certain metadata, court ordered production of historical accounting data in native format, and for the production of responsive ESI ?in the form of TIF images or other agreed upon file format with the associated metadata?and the OCR file?; court allowed previously redacted privileged documents to be scanned to preserve the privilege
Nature of Case: Claims arising in part from false and misleading statements and omissions concerning financial condition of Golf Club
Electronic Data Involved: Financial information, emails, ESI
Key Insight: Where plaintiff represented that defendant had not fulfilled production obligations pursuant to the court?s order, court ordered defendant to respond to questions as to the completeness of its production and other related topics and affirmed its prior order requiring the re-production of 35,000 pages of emails previously produced in hard copy, despite the alleged burden of doing so; court also ordered defendant to respond to questions regarding the production of ESI, including spreadsheets, previously produced in hard copy and noted, ?Understandably, taking an electronic document such as a spreadsheet, printing it, cutting it up, and telling one’s opponent to paste it back together again, when the electronic document can be produced with a keystroke is madness in the world in which we live.?
Nature of Case: Misappropriation and conversion of trade secret information
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court declined to compel production of detailed information regarding defendant?s electronically stored information and efforts to search the same where such production would be ?extremely burdensome? and unlikely to be of significant value, especially in light of defendants prior production of information regarding the relevant information systems and searches and because plaintiff had not established prejudice as a result of alleged deficiencies in defendants production, among other reasons; footnote addressing format of production reasoned hard copy production of ESI was acceptable because hard copy was a reasonably useable format, because production in electronic format would be burdensome, and because plaintiff?s counsel was already familiar with the hard copy production such that production in electronic form would be ?redundant and wasteful?
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Information related to information systems and searches for relevant ESI
Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff?s motion to compel upon finding that defendant ?did not timely comply with its discovery obligations? including failing to timely produce a hard drive, a laptop computer, and other relevant documents and failing to produce a privilege log, among other things, and ordered defendant to produce all relevant ESI and to provide additional information regarding the location and collection of additional ESI, including the identification of sources no longer available; court deferred ruling on alleged spoliation but awarded plaintiff $17,375.00 in attorney?s fees
Nature of Case: Breach of contract, fraud, negligence
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Where requesting party complained that information generated and produced in response to agreed-upon keyword search of ?Goldmine? database was inadequate and not rectified by index of customer information documents subsequently provided, and that additional information (such as dates) was needed, court ordered parties to confer about how date information could be retrieved and granted motion to compel only to the extent that requesting party?s consultant would be allowed to run his original protocol to determine if date information should have been produced in conformity with that protocol; costs to be borne by requesting party unless it appeared that date information had been wrongly withheld, in which case responding party would bear all of the costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees resulting from nonproduction of the information
Nature of Case: Trademark infringement
Electronic Data Involved: Goldmine customer relations management database
Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs’ request for sanctions, additional depositions and for an order compelling production of electronic data and signal plans in light of plaintiffs’ failure to diligently pursue such requests and failure to establish need for additional discovery at late stage of litigation; court granted plaintiffs opportunity to show that motion was substantially justified and deferred consideration of defendant’s request for expenses incurred in opposing motion
Nature of Case: Claims arising from collision between freight train and automobile
Electronic Data Involved: Data from event recorders and other components and equipment of the crossing signal system
Key Insight: Where defendants converted ESI from their original format, which had been searchable and sortable, into PDF files which did not have these capabilities, court cited Advisory Committee Notes to the 2006 amendment to FRCP 34(a)(1)(A) and found that defendants violated Rule 34 by producing documents which were not searchable or sortable, notwithstanding that plaintiffs did not request the documents in native electronic format; court ruled on various other discovery disputes and awarded plaintiffs monetary sanctions in light of defendants’ “purposeful foot dragging on discovery” and resulting prejudice to plaintiffs
Nature of Case: Class action lawsuit regarding California’s treatment of juvenile wards and parolees
Electronic Data Involved: Databases and other ESI
Key Insight: Where defendant produced electronic files in ?MAX format? with free ?Paperport? software to assist in its review but where plaintiff then expressed preference for hard copy documents and belief that electronic documents would cost triple the amount to review, court denied plaintiff?s motion to compel holding that defendants? production of files as kept in the usual course of business was sufficient; court also ruled that where plaintiff?s first request for documents did not specify production in electronic form, defendants need not reproduce hard copy documents electronically
Nature of Case: Patent infringement
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.