Holcomb v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. CV412-111, 2013 WL 434974 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 4, 2013)

Key Insight: Where plaintiff claimed that the document index which identified which Bates stamped document responded to which document request was not sufficient to enable a meaningful review and that Plaintiff?s counsel was ?unable to decipher the content? of what was produced (apparently because of the presence of ?jargon? and other codes), the court found that the document production was adequate under Rule 34, noting that there was no suggestion that the documents were not produced as they were kept in the usual course of business and that they were identified by Bates stamps to correspond with specific requests but nonetheless ordered counsel to confer in good faith to attempt resolution of ?any ?deciphering? issues? “(e.g. defense counsel or staff could sit down with plaintiff?s counsel and explain any coding or abbreviations?or have a corporate representative provide a glossary of some sort)”

Nature of Case: Lender-liability arising from alleged wrongful foreclosure

Electronic Data Involved: ESI