Key Insight: In an opinion addressing a number of discovery issues, the court declined to compel production of email in native format where defendant provided a ?reasonable explanation? for why it chose to produce in hard copy, namely, because ?they could more easily be reviewed for responsiveness and privilege?
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Emails
Key Insight: Court denied defendants? motion to produce the ?general ledger? in hard copy, with redactions, where the record made clear that defendants made no real attempt to comply with the court?s order compelling electronic production and, where defendant offered no proof of any court order prohibiting disclosure of the information contained in the ledger, where there was a sufficient protective order in place, and where ?matters involving payment of attorney fees are generally not privileged,? the court vacated prior orders allowing redactions and ordered production of the general ledger on CD or DVD within 3 days
Electronic Data Involved: Electronic copy of general ledger
Key Insight: In an order addressing a number of discovery concerns, court ordered the parties to meet and confer to resolve ESI disputes and ordered defendants to ?at a minimum? ensure that all files stored in electronic format were produced in a ?searchable? format and to re-produce ESI in native format absent a showing of undue hardship or expense; court ordered defendants to produce metadata and indicated willingness to excuse plaintiff?s failure to request it earlier in light of plaintiff?s ?repeated, good faith requests to meet and confer?
Nature of Case: Fair Labor Standards Act
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Despite a prior agreement between plaintiff?s counsel and former defense counsel that parties would produce documents on disc or in hard copy, court ordered production of ESI in electronic format citing the ?halting nature of this action since it commenced, the questions that have come up regarding the sufficiency of Plaintiff?s production and efforts to identify responsive documents, and the absence of any showing that responding [to] Defendants? request for ESI would be unduly burdensome?
Nature of Case: Action to recover monies advanced
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court denied motion for reconsideration of order compelling electronic production of defendants? general ledger and specifically rejected defendants? Rule 34 argument that because plaintiff failed to state the form of production, it could produce in hard copy, where defendants failed to specify a particular form of production in their response, where defendants failed to timely raise the Rule 34 issue (despite filing several motions discussing production of the ledger), and where defendants also failed to produce the evidence in the form in which it was ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form as is required by the rule; a Motion to Stay this order was thereafter denied, See Estate of Boles v. Nat?l Heritage 2010 WL 3218386 (N.D. Miss. Aug. 7, 2010)
Electronic Data Involved: Electronic copy of general ledger
Key Insight: Upon plaintiff?s first motion to compel, the court found that while information regarding defendant?s information technology department and the hardware and software used by defendant is discoverable, plaintiff?s requests were overly broad and the court could not compel responses to the interrogatories as drafted but ordered defendants to identify the computer program or software used to created or transmit the already produced documents and for defendants to produce native documents with metadata intact
Nature of Case: Employment discrimination
Electronic Data Involved: Information regarding defendant’s information technology department, ESI
Key Insight: Court granted petitioner?s motion to compel production of subpoenaed information in native format, including re-production of materials already produced in .pdf format, where, despite respondent?s objections, the court determined the underlying metadata could be probative, but ordered petitioner to bear the cost where the subpoena had been ?less than clear? regarding the format of production and where respondents? claims of undue burden ?carrie[d] some legitimacy?; court?s opinion acknowledged respondent?s argument regarding the inability to Bates stamp native documents and ordered that the documents be Bates-stamped ?only as technologically possible?
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse discretion by denying motion for re-production of emails in electronic format where appellant was ably to testify that she did not send the emails at issue and that they were fabricated and thus the hard copy emails were admitted in a ?reasonably useable format? as is required by the rules
Nature of Case: Petition for harassment restraining order
Electronic Data Involved: Emails
Key Insight: Court declined to reconsider its prior order directing plaintiff to produce certain hard drives and other data storage devices for forensic inspection where plaintiff failed to establish that such production was prohibited by Indian law and where plaintiff offered no evidence to rebut the court?s prior determination that plaintiff?s behavior ?cast serious doubt on the authenticity of any document produced? by plaintiff such that actual production of the devices was warranted
Electronic Data Involved: Hard drive, data storage devices
Key Insight: Where defendant?s forensic expert?s access to the hard drives seized from defendant was limited by protective order which allowed access only in a county building, using county equipment, the Supreme Court affirmed reversal of defendant?s conviction for 20 counts of possession of child pornography on the grounds that he was denied meaningful access to the hard drives and held that the appropriate test ?under these circumstances? was the ??overwhelming untainted evidence test? to demine whether a trial court?s erroneous ruling requires reversal?
Nature of Case: Possession of child pornography and related charges
Electronic Data Involved: Hard drives seized from defendant
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.