Tag:FRCP 34(b) Procedure or Format

1
United States v. O’Keefe, 537 F.Supp.2d 14 (D.D.C. 2008)
2
Autotech Techs. Ltd. P’ship v. Automationdirect.com, Inc., 2008 WL 783301 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2008)
3
Peterson v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2008 WL 1930453 (C.D. Ill. May 1, 2008)
4
L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, 2008 WL 2073958 (E.D. Cal. May 14, 2008)
5
Armor Screen Corp. v. Storm Catcher, Inc., 2008 WL 4753358 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2008)
6
Coleman v. Blockbuster, Inc., 2007 WL 4084281 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 15, 2007)
7
ICE Corp. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 2007 WL 4239453 (D. Kan. Nov. 30, 2007)
8
MGP Ingredients, Inc. v. Mars, Inc., 2007 WL 3010343 (D. Kan. Oct. 15, 2007)
9
In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litig., 2007 WL 1827635 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2007)
10
Ky. Speedway, LLC v. Nat’l Ass’n of Stock Car Auto Racing, 2006 WL 5097354 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 18, 2006)

Autotech Techs. Ltd. P’ship v. Automationdirect.com, Inc., 2008 WL 783301 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2008)

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

Peterson v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2008 WL 1930453 (C.D. Ill. May 1, 2008)

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

L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, 2008 WL 2073958 (E.D. Cal. May 14, 2008)

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

Armor Screen Corp. v. Storm Catcher, Inc., 2008 WL 4753358 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2008)

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

Coleman v. Blockbuster, Inc., 2007 WL 4084281 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 15, 2007)

Key Insight: Where defendant produced employment statistics from its database on a CD, but not in the format that plaintiffs wanted, court found that defendant had complied with Rule 34(b) requirement that ESI be produced ?in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a form or forms that are reasonably usable,? and denied plaintiffs? motion to compel and for sanctions

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Employment statistics

MGP Ingredients, Inc. v. Mars, Inc., 2007 WL 3010343 (D. Kan. Oct. 15, 2007)

Key Insight: Where parties had no prior agreement about the manner in which documents and ESI were to be produced and plaintiff did not specify format in requests for production, court found that defendants had the right under Rule 34 to choose the option of producing their documents and ESI as kept in the usual course of business and declined to order defendants to identify by Bates Numbers the documents and ESI that were responsive to each particular request for production

Nature of Case: Patent infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, and breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Documents and ESI

In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litig., 2007 WL 1827635 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2007)

Key Insight: Where, at the start of the litigation, parties agreed to production of ESI in a particular format (?TIFF? files subject to a scanning process known as ?OCR?), court declined to compel defendants to comply with amended Rule 34 for future document productions, commenting: ?An amendment to the civil rules-nearly two year after the filing of the lawsuit, and long after the parties established a system for propounding electronic discovery-does not justify the abdication of the parties’ agreement, especially given the security concerns raised by Defendants about maintaining the confidentiality of electronic documents. Of course, if the parties can stipulate to the production of some materials in native electronic format, they are free to do so. Otherwise, the Court orders that production of additional materials shall proceed in accordance with the parties’ prior agreement.?

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified ESI

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