Format Of Production – Page 15 – Electronic Discovery Law

United States v. Jarman, No. 11-31217, 2012 WL 2700403 (5th Cir. July 9, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Circuit court affirmed district court?s granting of defendant?s motion to compel production of a mirror image of a hard drive containing child pornography evidence where defendant?s expert presented unrebutted evidence that she could not conduct her investigation at a government facility because of ?time limitations and restrictions? and thus the circuit court could not conclude that the district court?s determination of ?no ?amply opportunity?? to investigate was clear error; court clarified, however, that it rejected the notion that inconvenience equated to a failure on the part of the government to make the child pornography evidence reasonably available and clarified that when such evidence is made available for inspection at a government facility, ?that is reasonable availability? such that the only issue to be resolved is whether the conditions imposed do not provide ?ample opportunity? for examination of the material

Nature of Case: child pornography; Adam Walsh Act

Electronic Data Involved: Child pornography evidence on hard drive

Minter v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., —F.R.D.—, 2012 WL 4903315 (D. Md. Oct. 12, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Addressing production of business records pursuant to Rule 33(d) and, more specifically, who should bear the cost of imaging and segregating the relevant information from the many other pages of information with which the at-issue data was maintained, the court addressed the question of who would bear a heavier burden in locating and extracting the information (or whether the burden was even), determined it would be the plaintiffs (noting, for example defendant?s reliance on particular software not available to plaintiffs) and rejected defendant?s offer to do the work if plaintiffs bore the costs; court found that defendant must bear the cost of imaging and producing the data requested; court also addressed case scheduling in light of the time estimates for accomplishing the production and considered defendant?s resources, including the number of scanners and personnel that were required to complete the task, before ordering a deadline accordingly

Nature of Case: Alleged scheme to generate unlawful fees related to loan applications

Electronic Data Involved: Rule 33(d) business records

Fraserside IP LLC v. Gamma Entm?t., —F. Supp. 2d—, 2012 WL 4504818 (N.D. Iowa Sept. 28, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: In dispute over jurisdictional discovery, court concluded that plaintiff was entitled to a ?small slice? of defendant?s Google Analytics data (which tracks and accumulates data related to websites? visitors) related to the number of visitors to defendant?s website(s) from Iowa-based IP addresses; court agreed with plaintiff that it was entitled to ?more? than a hard copy PDF ?screen grab? of the relevant information and indicated that it anticipated production as HTML pages that could be opened with a standard internet browser, but that if that was not an agreeable solution, another hearing would be held

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Google Analytics

Annex Books, Inc. v. City if Indianapolis, No. 1:03-cv-SEB-TAB, 2012 WL 892170 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 14, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiff was unable to produce requested ?bookkeeping data? in a manner that was usable by defendants despite significant efforts to do so (including retaining two computer forensic services, spending over $9500 on 30 hour of work, and purchasing QuickBooks Pro in an attempt to export the relevant data), the court found that plaintiff had demonstrated that the data was not reasonably accessible but also found that defendant had demonstrated good cause for seeking the information and ordered defendant to bear the costs of additional efforts (noting that it was ?unreasonable? for defendant to insist on production in QuickBooks format when incompatibility had been established)

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

AllianceBernstein L.P. v. Atha, —N.Y.S.2d—, 2012 WL 5519060 (N.Y. App. Div. Nov. 15, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: On defendant?s appeal of lower court?s order requiring production of his iphone to opposing counsel for counsel?s review, appellate court found the order too broad and ?tantamount to ordering the production of his computer? and remanded the case with the order that plaintiff produce the iphone to the court for in camera review to identify what if any information was responsive to plaintiff?s discovery request

Nature of Case: Breach of employment contract, misappropriation of confidential information

Electronic Data Involved: iPhone

FDIC v. Appleton, No. CV-11-476-JAK (PLAx), 2014 WL 10245383 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiff produced Relativity database with some 700,000 documents culled from its main server using search terms, and defendants complained there was no apparent logic to database and they could not tell what documents were responsive to what requests, court sided with defendants and ordered plaintiff to create files in Relativity into which it would place documents responsive to each particular request

Nature of Case: Receiver brought action against former officers and directors of failed bank

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

FTC v. Johnson, No. 2:10-cv-02203-RLH-GWF, 2012 WL 2138108 (D. Nev. June 12, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Where plaintiff produced documents as kept in the usual course of business and labeled some documents to correspond to certain requests and where plaintiff included ?a searchable concordance and an index that identifies the document?s source, description, and date range? the court found that the production complied with Rule 34 and denied defendant?s motion to compel plaintiff to ?respond to the requests for production of documents with organized and related responses?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

United States v. Briggs, No. 10-CR-184S, 2012 WL 5866574 (W.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court adopted lower court?s report and recommendation which denied defendant?s motion for sanctions related to the government?s discovery behaviors, including its production of ESI in searchable PDF but without the ability to manipulate the data, which defendant alleged failed to comply with the courts? prior order; court?s opinion, like prior opinions in this case, made clear the difficulties associated with a lack of controlling e-discovery case law/guidelines in criminal cases and put the Government ?on notice? that the Court would ?not hesitate to scrutinize the Government?s ESI discovery procedures to ensure responsiveness and fairness.?

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: Database, esi

S2 Automation LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc., No. CIV 11-0884 JB/WDS, 2012 WL 3656454 (D.N.M. Aug. 9, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court addressed a myriad of discovery disputes related to privilege logs, format of production, adequacy of plaintiff?s search for responsive materials, and the adequacy of its responses to defendant?s requests and ruled, among other things, that: plaintiff?s production in PDF was unacceptable and that production must be in native format or in the format requested by defendant and that plaintiff?s counsel?s statements (related to the court by sworn affidavit from defendant) were sufficient to put the adequacy of his compliance with Rule 26(g) in question and require production of plaintiff?s search strategy, including its interaction with counsel; court also compelled responses to a myriad of individual requests and ordered plaintiff to pay 80% of defendant?s fees in bringing this motion

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Coquina Invs. v. Rothstein, No. 10-60786-Civ., 2012 WL 3202273 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 3, 2012)

Dec 01 2012

Key Insight: Court found that counsel for Defendant ?acted negligently in failing to comply with its discovery obligations in this case? and that Defendant ?acted willfully in failing to comply with its discovery obligations and assist its outside counsel to properly litigate this case? and ordered that certain adverse facts were established for purposes of this action and that counsel and Defendant pay Plaintiff?s reasonable attorney?s fees and costs associated with its fourth and fifth motion for sanctions; discovery violations identified included: late (including after trial) production of relevant documents, counsel?s failure to produce relevant evidence ?in a manner that preserved the documents qualities? (i.e., with highly relevant formatting changes (e.g. no color) and without metadata), both Defendant and counsel?s failure to ?conduct an adequate search,? and the conspicuous absence of Defendant?s in-house counsel in assisting or supervising the litigation; court also noted that ?[i]n many ways, this is a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth? where the defense included two firms, hundreds of lawyers, and a consultant that only one firm was aware of, for example

Nature of Case: Fraud

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:Format Of Production