Tag: FRCP 34(b) Procedure or Format

1
Javo Beverage Co. Inc. v. California Extraction Ventures, Inc. (S.D. Cal. 2020).
2
Corker v. Costco Wholesale (W.D. Wash. 2020)
3
Lundine v. Gates Corp. (D. Kan. 2020)
4
White v. Relay Res. & Gen. Servs. Admin. (United States District Court, W.D. Washington, 2020)
5
NY Machinery Inc., et al. v. The Korean Cleaners Monthly, et al (District of New Jersey, 2020)
6
Shotwell, et al. v. Zillow Group Inc., et al. (Western Washington, 2019)
7
Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors LLC (Southern District of California, 2019)
8
Shim-Larkin v. City of New York, 16-CV-6099 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2019)
9
True Freight Logistics LLC et al v. Global Tranz Enterprises Incorporated et al (D. Ariz., 2019)
10
Bellamy v. Wal-Mart Stores, No. SA-18-CV-60-XR (W.D. Tex., 2019)

Corker v. Costco Wholesale (W.D. Wash. 2020)

Key Insight:

Electronic documents should be produced in the form it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably useable form. PDF images of a spreadsheet are not a reasonably usable form due to the functional limitations. While they are readable and searchable, they cannot be sorted or filtered as an original spreadsheet can be. Spreadsheets should be produced in their native form.

A party cannot unilaterally redact a document based on relevance absent a claim of privilege. In cases where the document contains highly confidential commercial information, a protective order may be issued requiring the information not be revealed or only be revealed in a specified way, such as designating it for “counsel eyes only.”

Electronic documents should be produced in the form it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably useable form. PDF images of a spreadsheet are not a reasonably usable form due to the functional limitations. While they are readable and searchable, they cannot be sorted or filtered as an original spreadsheet can be. Spreadsheets should be produced in their native form.

A party cannot unilaterally redact a document based on relevance absent a claim of privilege. In cases where the document contains highly confidential commercial information, a protective order may be issued requiring the information not be revealed or only be revealed in a specified way, such as designating it for “counsel eyes only.”

Nature of Case: Class Action, Unfair Competition

Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheets

Case Summary

White v. Relay Res. & Gen. Servs. Admin. (United States District Court, W.D. Washington, 2020)

Key Insight: good faith effort, a reasonable effort to respond must be made, obstructive and dilatory

Nature of Case: employment discrimination

Keywords: vague broad objections, Failing to fully investigate the case is not an excuse from making initial disclosures

View Case Opinion

NY Machinery Inc., et al. v. The Korean Cleaners Monthly, et al (District of New Jersey, 2020)

Key Insight: who bears the burden of paying for translation of foreign language documents

Nature of Case: unfair competition, false advertising, defamation, false light, trade libel, and tortious interference

Electronic Data Involved: foreign language documents

Keywords: foreign language, translation, machine translation, burden to pay

View Case Opinion

Shotwell, et al. v. Zillow Group Inc., et al. (Western Washington, 2019)

Key Insight: detailed stipulation of the discovery plan

Nature of Case: violation of the securities exchange act

Electronic Data Involved: all relevant discovery

Keywords: stipulation, discovery plan

View Case Opinion

Stone Brewing Co., LLC v. MillerCoors LLC (Southern District of California, 2019)

Key Insight: Requests for Production; marketing materials; Unreasonably cumulative or duplicative

Nature of Case: Trademark Infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy; Historical records; on-site inspection; Marketing materials (documents, recordings, video, displays, etc.)

Keywords: Discovery violations; adequacy of discovery responses; Vague/overbroad/burdensome/ not calculated to lead to discovery of documents relevant to claims or defenses; proportionality; access; costs/Attorney’s fees; resources; “Senior user”; Cherrypicking; Evidentiary preclusion; Court order; Representative samples

View Case Opinion

Shim-Larkin v. City of New York, 16-CV-6099 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2019)

Key Insight: The obligation to preserve evidence in a workplace discrimination suit can extend to personal devices known to contain relevant material.

Nature of Case: workplace discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: text messages

Keywords: personal device, text message, obligation to preserve

View Case Opinion

Bellamy v. Wal-Mart Stores, No. SA-18-CV-60-XR (W.D. Tex., 2019)

Key Insight: Properly clawed back privileged documents may not be relied upon for evidence in a case. However, if the contents of these clawed back documents demonstrates bad faith discovery conduct, then sanctions can still be awarded.

Nature of Case: slip-and-fall injury

Electronic Data Involved: inadvertently produced privileged documents

Keywords: clawback, bad faith, intent to deprive

View Case Opinion

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