Party Not Required to Produce Financials in Searchable Electronic Format, In Part Because Requesting Party Had Refused Similar Request

OKI Am., Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 2006 WL 2547464 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2006)

In this patent litigation, AMD moved to compel the production of certain financial documents, complaining that OKI had produced a disk containing 29,000 pages of financial materials which “were not in electronic format and not searchable.” In response, OKI expressed “outrage” that AMD was demanding exactly the kind of documents that AMD itself refused to provide. OKI stated it was forced to spend almost $25,000 to convert AMD’s documents into a searchable electronic format, after AMD produced its documents in unsearchable "tiff" format. Further, AMD had produced its materials “in a form that did not correspond to OKI’s infringement contentions and not in Microsoft Excel, as OKI had requested.”

OKI stated it had provided its financials in exactly the same "tiff" format in which AMD produced its financials and that AMD must be prepared to spend money to convert it, the same way OKI had to. Further, OKI reminded the court that in the case AMD relied on, Super Film of America, Inc. v. UCB Films, 219 F.R.D. 649 (D. Kan. 2004) the requesting party had itself provided the requested material in electronic format, something that AMD had repeatedly refused to do.

Accordingly, the court denied the motion in part because AMD was “asking OKI to do something AMD itself refused to do.” The motion was denied on the additional grounds that it was untimely filed.