Format Of Production – Page 30 – Electronic Discovery Law

Whitney v. Wurtz, 2007 WL 521231 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court ordered plaintiffs to provide a separate disk for each plaintiff’s responses to defendant?s request for production, and instructed (1) that ?electronic documents shall be produced as they are kept in the usual course of business or Plaintiffs shall organize and label the documents to correspond with Veriscape’s requests? and (2) that electronic documents be produced without the use of any compression software and in the format requested by defendant at the hearing

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, termination, and deceit

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic documents produced on computer disk

Polycom, Inc. v. Codian Ltd., 2007 WL 194588 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel production of defendants’ source code in native format to be maintained in confidence at Los Angeles office of plaintiffs’ counsel in light of security concerns and technical support issues raised by defendants, and since defendants had already produced an electronic version of the source code and plaintiffs’ consultants had been inspecting the code for several months at defense counsel’s Palo Alto office; court rejected plaintiff’s argument that current system intruded on plaintiff’s work product

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

KnifeSource, LLC v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 2007 WL 2326892 (D.S.C. Aug. 10, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant stated it did not maintain physical copies of statements and that compliance with production request would impermissibly require it to create documents, court found that defendant had not shown requested information was “not reasonably accessible” and ordered production to the extent defendant maintained any of the requested information electronically

Nature of Case: Conversion

Electronic Data Involved: Customer account statements

In re Maura, 842 N.Y.S.2d 851 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court ordered that non-party law firm’s hard drive be imaged, and that law firm (not plaintiff) would be entitled to select computer forensic expert to conduct cloning process; court further ordered parties to confer on details and set basic timeframe for cloning and review of material, and ruled that plaintiff would be responsible for costs associated with search and production

Nature of Case: Proceeding to determine the validity of a right of election

Electronic Data Involved: Law firm computer

Goss Int’l Ams., Inc. v. Graphic Mgmt. Assocs., Inc., 2007 WL 161684 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 11, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Court ordered Swiss defendants to produce all documents relating to their contacts with the United States, including email, and further ordered that such email and any attachments be produced in native format as specified in the request for production

Nature of Case: Patent litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Coleman v. Blockbuster, Inc., 2007 WL 4084281 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 15, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant produced employment statistics from its database on a CD, but not in the format that plaintiffs wanted, court found that defendant had complied with Rule 34(b) requirement that ESI be produced ?in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a form or forms that are reasonably usable,? and denied plaintiffs? motion to compel and for sanctions

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Employment statistics

Flying J Inc. v. TA Operating Corp., 2007 WL 2220581 (D. Utah July 30, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where defendant objected that requests for production of certain financial data sought to force them to create documents that did not exist, but did not assert that requested data was not readily accessible, and plaintiffs argued that they sought production of already-existing data (whether or not such data was stored in electronic form), court found that requests sought relevant information and ordered defendant ?to produce already-existing data, whether in raw or synthesized form,? responsive to the requests

Nature of Case: Antitrust litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Financial and sales data

Gupta v. Walt Disney World Co., 2007 WL 4165934 (11th Cir. Nov. 27, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: District court did not abuse its discretion when it denied, without holding an evidentiary hearing, plaintiff?s motion to compel discovery about work schedules that plaintiff alleged were forged, where plaintiff provided no support for his allegation that Walt Disney removed his name from the work schedules produced and Walt Disney presented evidence that records produced were copies of electronically maintained records, kept in the usual course of business, and were printed off the computer in the form in which they were maintained

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Work schedules

In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litig., 2007 WL 1827635 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2007)

Dec 01 2007

Key Insight: Where, at the start of the litigation, parties agreed to production of ESI in a particular format (?TIFF? files subject to a scanning process known as ?OCR?), court declined to compel defendants to comply with amended Rule 34 for future document productions, commenting: ?An amendment to the civil rules-nearly two year after the filing of the lawsuit, and long after the parties established a system for propounding electronic discovery-does not justify the abdication of the parties’ agreement, especially given the security concerns raised by Defendants about maintaining the confidentiality of electronic documents. Of course, if the parties can stipulate to the production of some materials in native electronic format, they are free to do so. Otherwise, the Court orders that production of additional materials shall proceed in accordance with the parties’ prior agreement.?

Nature of Case: Antitrust

Electronic Data Involved: Unspecified ESI

Treppel v. Biovail Corp., 233 F.R.D. 363 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Preservation order not warranted under three-part balancing test, but defendants would be required to treat Document Retention Questionnaire and supplemental letter inquiries regarding electronic document maintenance and retention as interrogatories and provide substantive responses since plaintiff provided ample basis and deposition was no substitute; magistrate also ordered production of electronic records in native file format since defendant had not provided any substantive basis for objection

Nature of Case: Defamation, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and civil conspiracy

Electronic Data Involved: Email and other electronic records

Tag:Format Of Production