Format Of Production – Page 20 – Electronic Discovery Law

ANZ Advanced Techs., LLC v. Bush Hog, LLC, No. 09-00228-KD-N, 2010 WL 3699917 (S.D. Ala. Sept. 9, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

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

State v. Grenning, 234 P.3d 169 (Wash. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

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

Radian Asset Assurance, Inc. v. Coll. Of the Christian Bros. of New Mexico, 2010 WL 4338057 (D.N.M. Sept. 15, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where parties could not reach agreement regarding parameters of search protocol, court ordered defendant to utilize search terms proposed by plaintiff but declined to order search of email at the present time, established the appropriate date range, and ordered defendants to produce ?exculpatory information?, i.e., ?anything that the College … believes [plaintiff] could reasonably use or could reasonably lead to admissible evidence?; court declined to order defendant to produce the files identified as a result of the search and ordered instead the production of a report of the results and for the parties to confer regarding the results

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Chapman v. Gen. Board of Pension & Health Benefits of the United Methodist Church, 2010 WL 2679961 (N.D. Ill. July 6, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to specify a form of production in its initial discovery requests and where defendant produced documents in hard copy, court found that no reproduction of electronic documents was required and rejected defendant?s arguments that plaintiff had failed to uphold her discovery obligations

Nature of Case: Violations of American’s with Disabilities Act

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic versions of previously produced hard copy

United States v. Salyer, Cr. No. S-10-0061 LKK (GGH), 2010 WL 3036444 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Acknowledging the general rule that the Government has no obligation to specifically identify Brady/Giglio material that has been disclosed to a defendant, the court noted its authority to require identification nonetheless and, considering the volume of the government?s disclosure, the individual defendant?s detention awaiting trial, the small size of his defense team, the lack of parallel civil litigation, and the lack of corporate assistance in identifying evidence, ordered the government to identify Brady material already disclosed and in subsequent disclosures

Nature of Case: Criminal

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Cherrington Asia Ltd. v. A&L Underground, Inc., 2010 WL 126190 (D. Kan. Jan. 8, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied sanctions for defendants? alleged ?document dump? of a hard drive containing both responsive and non-responsive documents as maintained in the ordinary course of business where, upon plaintiffs? initial objection, defendants re-produced the hard drive with irrelevant documents segregated and with a tool allowing the hard drive to be word-searched and where, despite plaintiffs? alleged discovery of evidence reflecting defendants? purposeful efforts to obstruct discovery, plaintiffs waited 15 months to bring their motion and were thus ?simply too late?

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drive

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Wockhardt Ltd., 2010 WL 2605855 (S.D. Ind. June 22, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff had produced millions of pages organized as maintained in the usual course of business, court denied defendant?s motion to compel plaintiff to precisely match the documents produced with the request to which they responded, but, citing plaintiff?s ?demonstrated ample resources?, ordered plaintiff to ?generally match up its documents with defendant?s requests by letter, chart, or some form of index? within 14 days; court declined to compel production of metadata that did not exist and ?OCR information? but ordered plaintiff to provide ?custodian information? as to those documents which lacked it

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Mitchell Eng?g. v. City of San Francisco, 2010 WL 2951856 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff offered to produce hard copy ?job files? for non-city projects as an alternative to conducting key word searching of 25 custodians to identify emails related to non-city projects but where defendant objected that hard copy was less searchable and would not contain all relevant emails, court denied defendant?s motion to compel keyword searching and production of ESI citing the more than two month delay since the issue was first raised, the close proximity of trial, and the court?s inability to determine the relevance of the 188 proposed search terms and ordered plaintiff?s production of hard copy files

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, ESI, hard copy

Interserve, Inc. v. Fusion Garage, Ltd., 2010 WL 3931100 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where the court found that defendant?s source code?s metadata ?(i.e. programmer?s notes or comments and other annotations in the source code) ? may be relevant to [plaintiff?s] claims,? the court ordered defendant to produce the metadata but indicated that it could redact the actual source code from the production and produce the metadata subject to the parties? stipulated protective order

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of business ideas, false advertising, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Metadata for source code ?(i.e. programmer?s notes or comments and other annotations in the source code)”

Jannx Med. Sys., Inc. v. Methodist Hosps., Inc., 2010 WL 4789275 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 17, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where absent a specific request for native production plaintiff produced ESI in .pdf format and where defendant objected that .pdf format was not in compliance with Rule 34 because it was not produced in the ?fully searchable and manipulable? format in which it was normally maintained, the court acknowledged that ?there are circumstances in which .pdf format may satisfy discovery obligations? but found that plaintiff had converted the ESI into a more burdensome format in contravention of Rule 34 and granted the motion to compel ?to the extent that Defendants? request that Plaintiff produce responsive information in an electronic database format that allows the information to be reasonably usable, i.e., fully searchable and manipulable, with the connections between the data fields intact?

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic database data

Tag:Format Of Production