Format Of Production – Page 26 – Electronic Discovery Law

Goshawk Dedicated Ltd. v. Am. Viatical Servs., LLC, 2008 WL 2901864 (N.D. Ga. July 23, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Ruling on various discovery issues, court set protocol for production of certain documents by non-party: (1) plaintiffs to specify documents sought in native format with metadata; (2) within 10 days, non-party to file with court an estimate of the cost of production of all documents; (3) within 10 days, plaintiffs to pay into court?s registry total sum of non-party?s estimate, or limit request to reduce estimated costs; (4) within 21 days, non-party to produce those documents or electronic files to plaintiffs in their original format with metadata; (5) within 10 days, non-party to file bill of actual costs incurred; (6) court to review costs and may appoint expert to help court determine reasonableness; (7) court to enter order directing clerk to pay non-party reasonable sum

Nature of Case: Fraud and negligence claims

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified electronic documents

Mich. First Credit Union v. CUMIS Ins. Soc., Inc., 2008 WL 2915077 (E.D. Mich. July 22, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: District court overruled plaintiff?s objections to magistrate judge?s order denying sanctions and clarifying that defendant was not required to produce ESI in ?native format? or to produce metadata, where limited evidentiary value of producing ?native format? documents with accompanying metadata was outweighed by overly burdensome task of generating such documents

Nature of Case: Breach of insurance contract, unfair trade practices

Electronic Data Involved: APEX files, Lotus Notes email files, and Microsoft Office spreadsheet files

Superior Prod. P?ship d/b/a/ PBSI v. Gordon Auto Body Parts Co., Ltd., 2008 WL 5111184 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 2, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court ordered electronically stored documents produced in native format in light of preference for such production in Rule 26 and where no obstacles to production were articulated; where plaintiff requested production of large volume of relevant documents and where deposition witness indicated that the information would be easily retrieved from defendant?s electronic database, court recognized potential burden to defendant and ordered production of sampling of documents to allow for determination of the need to produce the rest; court also ordered parties to meet and confer regarding the necessary volume of production of documents related to cost where documents were necessary to address the accuracy of previously produced summary and thus production of all such documents was not required, where information was available in electronic format, though, defendants were ordered to produce it

Nature of Case: Predatory pricing

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Mon River Towing, Inc. v. Indus. Terminal & Salvage Co., 2008 WL 2412946 (W.D. Pa. June 10, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Nothing that in its estimation, “‘a print-out of computer data’ is significantly different than the report requested here by Defendant or any ‘analyses’ of documents,” court ruled that Rule 34 does not require responding party to create or generate responsive materials in specific form requested by the moving party; however, to extent that party merely requested computer print-out of information at issue, such print-outs fell within bounds of Rule 34 and should be produced

Nature of Case: Negligence, lost profits and indemnification

Electronic Data Involved: Computer printouts

Gen. Elec. Co. v. SonoSite, Inc., 2008 WL 4062098 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 22, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where both sides argued that the other side had not produced all responsive information and it appeared to court that there were a few places in which parties may not have yet looked, court gave parties one last chance to look for responsive material before it would hold them to their ?the documents don’t exist? positions and warned that lack of diligence or forthrightness would result in sanctions; court further denied plaintiff?s request to modify protective order that required source code be made available on a computer at producing party?s office for viewing by opposing party

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

White v. Graceland Coll. Ctr. for Prof’l Dev. & Lifelong Learning, Inc., 2008 WL 4427269 (D. Kan. Sept. 25, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court denied without prejudice plaintiff’s request for order compelling defendants to produce emails and attachments in native electronic format with metadata intact, pending plaintiff’s obtaining a computer expert to advise on the issue; court further allowed plaintiff?s request for additional time to retain expert to analyze ESI produced by defendants, and, if necessary, to designate such expert as trial witness

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination, FMLA violations, retaliation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, primarily email and attachments

Autotech Techs. Ltd. P’ship v. Automationdirect.com, Inc., 2008 WL 783301 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where requesting party complained that information generated and produced in response to agreed-upon keyword search of ?Goldmine? database was inadequate and not rectified by index of customer information documents subsequently provided, and that additional information (such as dates) was needed, court ordered parties to confer about how date information could be retrieved and granted motion to compel only to the extent that requesting party?s consultant would be allowed to run his original protocol to determine if date information should have been produced in conformity with that protocol; costs to be borne by requesting party unless it appeared that date information had been wrongly withheld, in which case responding party would bear all of the costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees resulting from nonproduction of the information

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Goldmine customer relations management database

Kinexus Representative LLC v. Advent Software, Inc., 2008 WL 4379607 (Del. Ch. Sept. 22, 2008) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendant produced ESI as TIFF images and plaintiffs sought order compelling compliance with RFP instruction to ?produce documents in electronic form in the most accessible, searchable, maneuverable and common medium available to [defendant],? arguing that documents must be produced in native file format with metadata or in searchable OCR format, court declined to hold that 2005 Court of Chancery Rules required OCR format or native file format, including metadata, without a particularized showing of need; court found defendant?s proposal to provide searchable ?extracted text? was acceptable compromise and ordered production of ?extracted text? contingent on plaintiffs? agreement to reimburse all of defendant?s related expenses given plaintiffs? failure to timely object to non-searchable TIFF format

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, unjust enrichment

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

WIREdata, Inc. v. Village of Sussex, 751 N.W.2d 736 (Wis. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Wisconsin Supreme Court disagreed with certain of the court of appeals’ specific holdings, including: that municipalities denied open records requests of WIREdata and, thus, violated open records law; that PDFs were insufficient to comply with such open records requests; and that open records law required access to computerized database; decision of court of appeals reversed in part and affirmed in part, and cases remanded to trial courts

Nature of Case: Company sued municipalities under Wisconsin’s Open Records Law

Electronic Data Involved: Database containing property assessment records

Cartwright v. Viking Indus., Inc., 2008 WL 4283614 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 11, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where parties agreed to production of database materials but failed to reach mutual understanding regarding need for privilege log, court held that failure to produce log due to misunderstanding did not waive privilege; court rejected argument that providing log would be unduly burdensome and expensive and ordered production of privilege log within two weeks

Nature of Case: Class action product liability litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Tag:Format Of Production