Format Of Production – Page 27 – Electronic Discovery Law

Armor Screen Corp. v. Storm Catcher, Inc., 2008 WL 5262707 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 17, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff produced materials relied on by its expert on DVD in .sav format but defendants alleged it was inaccessible, court held that .sav format was a ?reasonably accessible format? and declined to compel re-production; court?s reasoning included consideration that .sav was format in which expert originally considered the information and evidence that .sav files could be opened by standard ?statistical computer packages?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, “.sav” data

Huang v. Gateway Hotel Holdings, 2008 WL 2486030 (E.D. Mo. June 18, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court ruled that plaintiffs were not required to produce for forensic inspection their ?desktop computers, cell phones, e-mail machines, laptop computers, mobile phones, ESI storage media, handheld computers and personal digital assistants,? but ordered plaintiffs determine which plaintiffs owned such devices and to produce a list of names and equipment to defendant within 20 days, and defendant would be allowed to re-file the discovery request with a showing of need; court further ruled that defendant need not produce pay and time records in an accessible electronic format but gave plaintiffs leave to re-file motion upon a showing that defendant had not supplied all available pay and time records

Nature of Case: FLSA claims, retaliation

Electronic Data Involved: Computers, cell phones and ESI storage devices used by plaintiffs

CBT Flint Partners, LLC v. Return Path, Inc., 2008 WL 4441920 (N.D. Ga. August 7, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where plaintiff moved to compel production of essentially every document in defendant?s possession, failed to engage in meaningful meet and confer discussions, repeatedly ?filled the record with invective? and made misrepresentations to court, and where defendant had produced in native format over 1.4 million pages of documents as result of electronic search using plaintiff?s 102 search terms in addition to numerous versions of source code and paper documents, and was in substantial compliance with discovery at time of hearing, and where court had previously imposed cost shifting by ordering production of certain documents contingent upon plaintiff bearing $300,000 of defendant?s privilege review expense, court further ruled that defendant was entitled, under Rule 37(a)(5), to an additional $86,787 representing 75 percent of its attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with the discovery dispute

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email, ESI

Yu v. New York City Hous. Dev. Corp., 2008 WL 2152138 (S.D.N.Y. May 20, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Ruling on various discovery matters, court noted plaintiff?s belated complaint that documents were not produced in ESI format and defendants? offer to convert their document production into OCR files, ?a more searchable form than the PDF format it originally provided,? and ordered plaintiff to advise defense counsel within three days if he desired such conversion; court further noted that plaintiff?s request for email was overbroad and that he had failed to justify requiring defendants to undertake a large-scale search of their backup tapes; court further ordered plaintiff to return employer-issued laptop computer to defendant

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email, laptop

Koosharem Corp. v. Spec Personnel, LLC, 2008 WL 4458864 (D.S.C. Sept. 29, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Finding that forensic analysis of defendants? business and home computers was appropriate where plaintiffs presented evidence of specific problems that raised questions regarding accuracy, completeness and authenticity of defendants? email production, court articulated detailed 20-point protocol covering, inter alia, instructions for parties? retention of third party forensic expert, scope of forensic search, privilege review and cost-shifting

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, violations of trade secrets and unfair trade practices acts, and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Work and home computers containing both business and personal information; email

Perez-Farias v. Global Horizons, Inc., 2007 WL 991747 (E.D. Wash. Mar. 30, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied defendants’ FRCP 60(b) motion for relief from discovery orders, and ordered defendants to comply with prior orders and, among other things, produce certain database in native format, and produce requested email and Excel spreadsheet

Nature of Case: Class action brought by farm workers

Electronic Data Involved: Database, email and spreadsheet

Member Servs., Inc. v. Sec. Mut. Life Ins., 2007 WL 2907520 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court ordered defendant to produce highly relevant source code in electronic format subject to protective order in place and agreement by expert that he not share the information with others, including the plaintiffs, notwithstanding prior production in hard copy format

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, unfair trade practices

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Io Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc., 2007 WL 1113800 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel and denied defendant’s request to shift costs of production to plaintiff, since defendant provided no information about whether and how such information was “inaccessible” or any other information relevant to cost-shifting determination under Zubulake III; court encouraged parties to agree on most efficient means of production and noted that plaintiff had indicated willingness to provide high capacity storage devices

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Adult video content; website traffic information

MGP Ingredients, Inc. v. Mars, Inc., 2007 WL 3010343 (D. Kan. Oct. 15, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where parties had no prior agreement about the manner in which documents and ESI were to be produced and plaintiff did not specify format in requests for production, court found that defendants had the right under Rule 34 to choose the option of producing their documents and ESI as kept in the usual course of business and declined to order defendants to identify by Bates Numbers the documents and ESI that were responsive to each particular request for production

Nature of Case: Patent infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, and breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Documents and ESI

Rebman v. Follet Higher Educ. Group, Inc., 2007 WL 1303031 (M.D. Fla. May 3, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant showed that there were more than 200 million sales transactions contained in database and that it would be necessary to create a special software program to capture the information requested by plaintiffs and translate the information into a meaningful and readable format, court sustained defendant?s objections of burdensomeness and overbreadth and denied motion to compel; court would allow plaintiff to serve new, more narrowly tailored requests for production but would first require parties to confer in good faith to discuss the form in which ESI should be produced and how to ameliorate the costs attendant to production of such information

Nature of Case: Third party breach of contract and unfair trade practices

Electronic Data Involved: Sales database

Tag:Format Of Production