FRCP 34(b) Procedure or Format – Page 10

Nat?l Jewish Health v. WebMD Health Servs. Grp., Inc., No. 12-cv-02834-WYD-MJW, 2014 WL 2118585 (D. Colo. May 21, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff maintained emails in Enterprise Vault with journaling capabilities (which captures and stores all emails in one place) and all ESI produced was searchable, sortable, paired with relevant metadata and included Concordance load files (and where emails were also produced with their attachments), the special master found the production met the requirements of 34(b)(2)(E)(ii) and was both properly produced in the form in which it was ordinarily maintained and in a reasonably usable form and further found that although 34(b)(2)(E)(i) did not apply to ESI, the production also satisfied the traditional requirement to produce documents (which ESI is not) in the manner in which it is kept in the usual course of business; special master made clear that a custodian need not be an individual and that ?[a] company, through an IT department, can serve as the custodian of electronic files kept on company servers.?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

West Plains, LLC v. Retzlaff Grain Co., No. 8:13CV47, 2014 WL 2515198 (D. Neb. June 3, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where plaintiff produced thousands of documents on disc and in hard copy, and divided some of the electronic documents into files on the disc but otherwise provided no indices to guide defendants to responsive materials, court found plaintiff?s responses insufficient and ordered plaintiff to produce index or other tool to guide defendants to the documents responsive to each individual request for production

Nature of Case: Company sued competitor, and former employees who had resigned to join competitor, for misappropriation of confidential business information, tortious interference with business relationships, and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI produced on disc

Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Vistana Condominium Owners Assoc., No. 2:12-cv-01324-JAD-NJK, 2014 WL 2041950 (D. Nev. May 16, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendant produced documents as they were received from third parties and with metadata allowing plaintiff to identify the documents by bates range, file path, and document title, court found that the production ?largely complied? with Rule 34 and the obligation to produce documents as kept in the usual course of business and that sanctions were not warranted but also found that the responses created unnecessary obstacles to the plaintiff and ordered defendant to indicate whether the documents it produced were actually responsive, reasoning that plaintiff should not have to ?guess at which requests were responded to and which were not?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Melian Labs, Inc. v. Triology, LLC, No. 13-cv-04791-SBA (KAW), 2014 WL 4386439 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 4, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied defendant?s motion to compel production of all emails and spreadsheets in native format, since the parties? Joint Rule 26(f) Report was a stipulation and therefore Rule 34(b) did not govern their dispute; the parties? Joint Rule 26(f) Report did not require that all ESI be produced electronically but only stated that ESI may be produced in paper, PDF, or TIFF and that electronic files should be produced in native format when it was more practicable to do so; defendant failed to articulate why metadata was important to emails; and plaintiff had already produced some of its spreadsheets in native format (Excel) where the printouts were difficult to read

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email and spreadsheets

A & R Body Specialty & Collision Works, Inc. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., No. 3:07CV929 (WWE), 2014 WL 4437684 (D. Conn. Sep. 9, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Magistrate judge denied as moot defendants’ request for plaintiffs’ consent to release emails stored with third party vendors Earthlink and AT&T in light of vendors? representations that, when an Earthlink.net or ATT.net user deletes an email from Outlook, the email simultaneously is deleted from the vendor’s server and cannot be recovered; magistrate judge also denied plaintiffs’ request for defendants to produce a merged data set, where one data set had 157 columns and was extracted from third-party provider?s system, and second set had more information but used different field identifiers, since a party cannot be compelled to create a document for its production and the creation of requested data compilation would inherently require the creation of a ?document,? and producing party is not required to produce ESI in more than one form

Nature of Case: Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email, data

Castillon v. Corrections Corp. of Am., No. 1:12-cv-005590EJL, 2014 WL 517505 (D. Idaho Feb. 7, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendant produced data from timekeeping system in searchable .PDF format and provided attestation from the vice president of technology and chief information officer that that .PDF was the ?only, built-in, reasonably accessible data format? and that producing in the requested format would require Defendant to undertake the ?lengthy and daunting? task of writing a script and where Plaintiffs did not specify the format of production in their request, the court declined to compel re-production of the at-issue data, but noted that if Plaintiffs were willing to pay for the expense of writing a script, ?they may approach Defendant with such a request.?

Nature of Case: Prisoners’ civil rights

Electronic Data Involved: Data from timekeeping system

Enargy Power (Shenzhen) Co. v. Xiaolong Wang, No. 13-11348-DJC, 2014 WL 4687542 (D. Mass. Sep. 17, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendants maintained hard copy business records that they produced electronically on CD-ROM, but did not make a sufficient showing that documents were produced as they were kept in the usual course of business since defendants provided no details regarding where and how documents were maintained, court ordered defendants to organize and label documents to correspond to the categories of documents requested by plaintiffs; court further ruled that defendants need not ?affirm that their document searches and productions are complete without qualification, or that no additional responsive documents exist,? but directed defendants, once they had completed their search and produced all documents they intended to produce, to confirm their efforts in locating responsive documents were complete and whether they were withholding any documents

Nature of Case: Violations of Computer Fraud & Abuse Act, conversion, misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy documents scanned and produced on CD-ROM

Lozoya v. Allphase Landscape Constr., Inc., No. 12-cv-1048-JLK, 2014 WL 222068 (D. Colo. Jan. 21, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: In case where defendants estimated: (1) production costs for discovery from computers and smart phones would run $35,000 to $45,000 for uploading and processing of data, and (2) plaintiffs’ potential recovery as between $10,350 to $29,700, court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel finding that plaintiffs’ conduct was far more accommodating and professional than defendants’ and that production in Bates numbered .pdf format would not place undue burden on defendants

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails, texts

Skepkek v. Roper & Twardowsky, LLC, No. 11-4102-KHV, 2014 WL 289470 (D. Kan. Jan. 27, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Noting that discovery dispute was good example of one which could have been avoided had the parties adequately conferred at their Rule 26(f) conference regarding production of ESI, court found that defendants failed to comply with prior discovery order by failing to produce attachments to responsive emails and granted motion to compel production of attachments

Nature of Case: Contract dispute concerning attorney fee-sharing agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Attachments to e-mails

In re Zoloft (Sertraline Hydrochloride) Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2342, 2013 WL 8445354 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Upon the Plaintiffs? Steering Committee?s motion to compel Pfizer to produce a log identifying documents withheld from production as non-responsive or irrelevant, particularly email attachments, the court noted the prior comprehensive treatment of the question of whether attachments must be produced in Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co, Inc., No. 08 Civ. 7508(SAS), 2011 WL 3738979 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2011) and concluded in this case that requiring defendant to log or produce with redactions those documents previously withheld was not warranted absent a showing of a ?systematic failure in Pfizer?s document review? or that the failures were ?on a large scale? or the product of an ?unjustified decision? but reasoned that the burden of requiring a log or other justification for the witholdings going forward would not carry as high a burden and ordered the parties to confer to determine how best to track that information going forward

Nature of Case: Product Liability

Electronic Data Involved: Attachments to ESI, particularly email

Tag:FRCP 34(b) Procedure or Format