Format Of Production – Page 31 – Electronic Discovery Law

A/R Roofing, L.L.C. v. Certainteed Corp., 2006 WL 2381610 (D. Kan. Aug. 16, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where the font used by plaintiff’s expert in his hard copy list of customer estimates and contracts was ?incredibly small? and difficult to read without magnification, thus rendering hard copy list inadequate, and because defendant’s request for production of material in electronic form was not otherwise prohibited by scheduling order, court granted defendant’s motion to compel the data in electronic format

Nature of Case: Plaintiff claimed loss of business resulting from letter sent by defendant

Electronic Data Involved: Customer list

Google Inc. v. Am. Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc., 2006 WL 2318803 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied motion to compel plaintiff to produce a witness for further deposition under FRCP 30(b)(6), stating that, although defendant “may have some basis for complaining about the timing and manner in which the spreadsheet was produced,” defendant did not demonstrate that additional testimony was necessary regarding the spreadsheet, or that there was any information that was more readily obtainable from a live witness than from the spreadsheet which had been produced in native format

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Excel spreadsheet

Lewis v. Sch. Dist. #70, 2006 WL 2506465 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to overbroad request for all emails, finding that defendants’ production of all existing emails sent to or from plaintiff, or pertaining to plaintiff’s performance during relevant time period was a reasonable attempt to provide responsive information; court further rejected plaintiff’s motion for an order to show cause regarding possible spoliation, concluding that it was not reasonable for defendants “to have foreseen that all e-mails would be relevant to plaintiff’s situation”

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email

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

OKI Am., Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 2006 WL 2547464 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied party’s motion to compel financial data in searchable electronic format in part because moving party had itself refused to produce its financials in searchable electronic format

Nature of Case: Patent litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Financial materials produced on CD in unsearchable “TIFF” format

Cornell Research Found., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 2006 WL 5097357 (N.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court found that litigation tactic employed by HP, in making such an extraordinary voluminous, twelfth hour production, was “disturbing,” but denied plaintiffs’ request that HP prepare a detailed index of material produced since it would be unduly harsh and potentially intrusive on attorney work product; court instead invited plaintiffs to seek additional, limited discovery if appropriate and noted tactic might be relevant to court’s declaring the lawsuit an exceptional case for purposes of awarding attorneys’ fees and costs in the event plaintiffs’ infringement claims were successful

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Over 38 gigabytes of ESI produced late in discovery

Braun v. Agri-Systems, 2006 WL 278592 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where plaintiff produced digitized documents from defendant’s inspection of nine boxes of hard copy documents (some 10,000 pages) per the parties’ agreement, court denied defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff to provide an index of such digitized documents, finding that Rule 34 does not require a party to create an index

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, negligence and breach of confidentiality agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Index of digital documents

Quinby v. WestLB AG, 245 F.R.D. 94 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court applied Zubulake factors and granted in part defendant?s motion to shift costs, holding that defendant was entitled to recover 30 percent of the costs of restoring and searching backup tapes for responsive emails of one former employee, stating: “[I]f a party creates its own burden or expense by converting into an inaccessible format data that it should have reasonably foreseen would be discoverable material at a time when it should have anticipated litigation, then it should not be entitled to shift the costs of restoring and searching the data.”

Nature of Case: Gender discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Email stored on backup tapes

Ky. Speedway, LLC v. Nat’l Ass’n of Stock Car Auto Racing, 2006 WL 5097354 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 18, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff?s request that defendants produce metadata for all records maintained in electronic form produced to date, where plaintiff did not demonstrate a particularized need for metadata, the parties had no agreement about the format of production of electronic files, and plaintiff did not seek metadata until months after defendants had produced hard copy and electronic copies of documents; if plaintiff still desired metadata, court suggested plaintiff identify specific documents for which it was needed

Nature of Case: Antitrust and anti-competitive conspiracy claims

Electronic Data Involved: Metadata

Clever View Invs., Ltd. v. Oshatz, 2006 WL 305467 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Magistrate ordered parties to share cost of $15,182 hard copy production (responding party to pay 60 percent and requesting party to pay 40 percent) where parties failed to seek assistance from the court prior to the copying, and where some of the reproduction was unnecessary since much of the information was available through other means, including on CD

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: CD containing purchase orders

Tag:Format Of Production