Format Of Production – Page 27 – Electronic Discovery Law

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

Amersham Biosciences Corp. v. PerkinElmer, Inc, 2007 WL 842038 (D.N.J. Mar. 15, 2007) (Unpublished)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of that portion of its January 31, 2007 order adopting magistrate judge’s finding that plaintiff had waived any privilege that may have applied to the 37 Non-Lotus Notes Documents

Nature of Case: Patent litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Privileged email

ISO Claims Servs., Inc., ACI Div. v. Appraisal.com, Inc., 2007 WL 809684 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 15, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where plaintiff argued that it was willing to produce documents that were the subject of defendant’s motion to compel, but had been waiting for a response from defense counsel as to how to best produce electronic documents (which formed the bulk of the production), court set date for production and expressed hope that “the parties will be able to work out how best to produce documents contained in electronic format on their own”

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic data

Beardsley v. All Am. Heating, Inc., 2007 WL 869959 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 20, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court ordered defendant to answer certain interrogatories regarding customers and projects and to produce “a complete unedited electronic copy of Defendant’s database” which contained the requested information

Nature of Case: Wrongful termination

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Armament Sys. & Procedures, Inc. v. IQ Hong Kong Ltd., 2007 WL 895836 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 21, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiff to produce mirror image copies of hard drives at location of defendants’ computer forensics expert, since court saw no reason to treat such discovery differently than traditional (paper) discovery, any privacy concerns were addressed in the protocol proposed by defendants, and it was less burdensome than forcing defendants’ experts to conduct their testing at the site of plaintiff’s experts

Nature of Case: Patent litigation involving claims of forgery and fraud

Electronic Data Involved: Mirror image of hard drive

ICE Corp. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 2007 WL 4239453 (D. Kan. Nov. 30, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel production of “electronic versions of all documents produced in discovery, including metadata,” since plaintiff failed to comply with local procedural requirements for motion and because plaintiff never specified electronic format in original discovery requests but instead merely asked defendants for such production subsequently

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, unjust enrichment, misappropriation of trade secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic versions of all documents produced in discovery, including metadata

Tag:Format Of Production