FRCP 34(b) Procedure or Format – Page 7

Wai Feng Trading Co. v. Quick Fitting, Inc., Nos. 13-33S, 13-56S, 2016 WL 4184014 (D.R.I. June 14, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Following several extensions of discovery, court addressed motion to compel production of documents and email in native format and, noting that a particular format was not requested and that the parties? had consistently produced documents in hard copy or in searchable PDF format, found that only two documents ?arguably might contain metadata that could be relevant? and ordered that those documents be produced, but shifted the costs to the requesting party

Nature of Case: Theft of intellectual property, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, database, ESI

Sky Med. Supply Inc. v. SCS Support Claim Serv. Inc., No. 12- 6383, 2016 WL 4703656 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: Magistrate judge denied defendant?s motion to compel plaintiff to organize and label its document production ?so that it corresponds to the categories in the request? because the discovery documents were immediately available for inspection at plaintiff counsel?s office in electronic format already organized, identifiable, and searchable by claim number; defendants needing only to execute claims number searches to identify documents. Thus, the court concluded that unless and until an inspection is undertaken and shown to be unduly burdensome, the plaintiff?s offer to permit inspection of database comports with ?both the letter and spirit of rule 34.?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

McKinney/Pearl Rest. Partners, L.P. v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. 3:14-cv-2498-B, 2016 WL 98603 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2016)

Dec 01 2016

Key Insight: In this case, the court addressed Plaintiff?s motion to compel ?the production and organization of certain documents and metadata? and considered the applicability of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(i) and (ii) to the production of electronically stored information. Ultimately, ?[t]he Court [found] persuasive the analysis that, where Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i) addresses the organization of a production and Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(ii) specifically addresses the form for producing ESI (where form of production is inherently not an issue with hard-copy documents), and in light of the purposes of the 2006 amendments to Rule 34 and of Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i)?s requirements, Rules 34(b)(2)(E)(i) and 34(b)(2)(E)(ii) should both apply to ESI productions.?

Nature of Case: Breach of commercial lease agreement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Midwest Feeders, Inc. v. The Bank of Franklin (S.D. Mississippi, 2016)

Jul 19 2016

Key Insight: if images of hard drives is sufficient prodcution of the hard drives themselves

Nature of Case: Fraud, conversion of instruments, failure to exercise ordinary care

Electronic Data Involved: all computers midwest obtained and the information on those computers at the time they were obtained

Keywords: hard drives, forensic imaging

View Case Opinion

Gade v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (District of Vermont, 2016)

Jun 06 2016

Key Insight: When the productions of underlying information (exact Excel formulas in this case) may disclose proprietary information, a supplemental disclosure explaining the underlying reasons may be a suitable replacement

Nature of Case: Automobile insurance coverage

Electronic Data Involved: Excel spreadsheet formulas

Keywords: Excel, formulas, moot, metadata, award of sanctions, expenses, fees

View Case Opinion

First Fin. Sec., Inc v. Lee (D. Minn, 2016)

Mar 08 2016

Key Insight: Magistrate recommended sanctions for defendants’ willful failure to comply with his discovery order. No finding of bad faith.

Nature of Case: Breach of contract.

Electronic Data Involved: Defendant emails and text messages.

Keywords: “Strong circumstantial evidence” that the defendants had concealed documents. Adverse inference instructions and legal costs imposed by court.

View Case Opinion

Stormo v. City of Sioux Falls, No. 12-04057 (D. S.D. Feb. 19, 2016)

Feb 19 2016

Key Insight: Providing a document index is not overly burdensome. Production of metadata cannot be compelled without showing that metadata is relevant..

Nature of Case: violation of civil rights as a landowner

Electronic Data Involved: metadata, electronically stored data, document index

Keywords: adequacy of production, metadata relevancy

View Case Opinion

Granados v. Traffic Bar and Restaurant, Inc. (S.D.N.Y., 2015)

Dec 30 2015

Key Insight: if sanctions can be granted for inconsistent and incomplete response from opposing party

Nature of Case: violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law

Electronic Data Involved: initial interrogatories and verifications

Keywords: spoliation, sanctions, default judgment, defunct business, unreachable party

View Case Opinion

Banks v. St. Francis Health Ctr., Inc., No. 15-cv-2602-JAR-TJJ, 2015 WL 7451174 (D. Kan. Nov. 23, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Addressing Plaintiff?s Motion to Compel, court overruled Defendant?s objection to producing ESI in native format with metadata where Defendant failed to indicate in its objection the form of production it intended to use instead and did not support its objection by explaining why it could not or should not be required to produce as requested and, in fact, admitted that it had previously produced material in native format; court denied without prejudice Plaintiff?s motion to compel responses outlining Defendant?s search efforts (sometimes called “discovery on discovery”) where Plaintiff?s counsel failed to confer with Defense counsel prior to bringing the motion, as is required by the District of Kansas? ESI Guidelines

Nature of Case: Title VII: racial discrimination, retaliatory conduct

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Themis Bar Review, LLC v. Kaplan, Inc., No. 14CV208-L (BLM), 2015 WL 3397877 (S.D. Cal. May 26, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where the parties agreed to a Joint Discovery Plan requiring production in PDF unless metadata was requested and that in such cases the parties should meet and confer to discuss the format of production in good faith and where Defendant made such a request and sought to confer but was ignored, court ordered Plaintiff to re-produce emails with associated metadata at its own expense

Electronic Data Involved: Emails and metadata

Tag:FRCP 34(b) Procedure or Format