FRCP 34(b) Procedure or Format – Page 11

Kwasniewski v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, No. 2:12-cv-00515-GMN-NJK, 2013 WL 3297182 (D. Nev. June 28, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Although Defendant complied with Rule 34 by producing documents as maintained in the usual course of business with a table of contents, metadata, and text search capability, the court found that the responses were ?deficient in that they create unnecessary obstacles for the Plaintiffs,? and that Defendant must ?indicate whether the documents it produced are actually responsive,? reasoning that Plaintiff ?should not have to guess which requests were responded to and which were not?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Holcomb v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. CV412-111, 2013 WL 434974 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 4, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where plaintiff claimed that the document index which identified which Bates stamped document responded to which document request was not sufficient to enable a meaningful review and that Plaintiff?s counsel was ?unable to decipher the content? of what was produced (apparently because of the presence of ?jargon? and other codes), the court found that the document production was adequate under Rule 34, noting that there was no suggestion that the documents were not produced as they were kept in the usual course of business and that they were identified by Bates stamps to correspond with specific requests but nonetheless ordered counsel to confer in good faith to attempt resolution of ?any ?deciphering? issues? “(e.g. defense counsel or staff could sit down with plaintiff?s counsel and explain any coding or abbreviations?or have a corporate representative provide a glossary of some sort)”

Nature of Case: Lender-liability arising from alleged wrongful foreclosure

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

RPM Pizza LLC v. Argonaut Great Cent. Ins. Co., No. 10-684-BAJ-SCR, 2013 WL 6054551 (M.D. La. Nov. 15, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Court ordered defendant to provide ESI in the format requested, reasoning that defendant waived its objection by not timely asserting it, and also rejected the argument that the plaintiff had not shown why it was necessary for defendant to produce in the requested form where, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(2)(E), a requesting party is not required to make such a justification

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Teledyne Instruments, Inc. v. Cairns, No. 6:12-cv-854-Orl-28TBS, 2013 WL 5781274 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 25, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff sought to inspect Defendants? computers and devices based on discrepancies discovered between metadata produced by Defendants and metadata extracted by Plaintiff?s expert, court denied the motion upon the explanation that system metadata and application metadata are not always the same and where Plaintiff failed to adequately explain why the discrepancies were cause for concern; court undertook extended discussion of format of production issues related to production ?in the ordinary course of business? and found that Defendants? production of native files (both email and other ESI) with an accompanying spreadsheet providing additional information related to where the documents were kept and how they were organized was sufficient, but, as to ?converted files and non-ESI documents,? ordered a production log identifying to which request each was responsive;? court ordered Plaintiff to produce a categorical privilege log

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, conversion

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email, hard copy

FDIC v. Giannoulias, No. 12 C 1665, 2013 WL 5762397 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 23, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where defendants propounded 242 requests for documents, trial court declined to require FDIC to review thousands of documents ?to weed out a presumably small subset of irrelevant materials,? or to organize its Phase II production according to defendants? numerous discovery requests; court granted in part and denied in part the parties? respective motions concerning search terms to be used to identify responsive material, and ruled that FDIC would bear the costs of production as they arose subject to the possibility that the court may later require contribution from the defendants; court further directed FDIC to submit to the court a revised proposed ESI protocol

Nature of Case: Receiver sued former directors and officers of bank to recover approximately $114 million in losses bank suffered on 20 commercial real estate loans

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, including email

James v. UMG Recordings, Inc., No. 11-cv-01613-SI (MEJ), 2013 WL 5978322 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs could surely foresee the need to manipulate royalty data but did not specify production in electronic form, and defendant had already twice produced the documents and argued that production of electronically formatted royalty statements would require creation of new documents not currently in existence, court denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of the data in electronic format, stating that plaintiffs’ proffered justification that Excel format would be more convenient “falls far short of the mark”; court further denied plaintiffs’ request for receipts data, finding that the burden of reprogramming royalty database and creating new software to extract information far outweighed usefulness of ordering production given that plaintiffs stated they could discern the data by extrapolation

Nature of Case: Consolidated putative class action for breach of contract and other claims filed by recording artists and producers who alleged that defendant underpaid royalties on digital downloads of plaintiffs’ recordings

Electronic Data Involved: Royalty statements in Excel format, receipts from download transactions with vendors

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

Home Instead, Inc. v. Florance, No. 8:12CV264, 2013 WL 5979629 (D. Neb. Nov. 8, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Finding defendants? effort to respond to discovery inadequate in various respects, court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel and ordered defendants: (1) to provide detailed listing of all documents responsive to plaintiff’s discovery and in defendants’ possession, custody or control as of date of discovery requests, but which were not produced because defendants destroyed, deleted, sold, shredded or otherwise discarded them, along with a description of how and when defendants lost control or possession of such information, (2) to further search for and respond to discovery, produce any additional discovery located, and explain by written affidavit, as to each separate document request, the efforts made to locate responsive documents, and (3) to provide a sworn affidavit outlining whether a litigation hold was put in place, persons to whom litigation hold letter was sent, directions for preservation, sources identified for search, search terms used and efforts to ensure compliance with litigation hold; court further faulted defendants? production of one large PDF that contained no metadata, no indication of parent-child document relationship, and no indication as to the beginning and end of each document, and ordered defendants to produce responsive information in a manner that complied with the Federal Rules

Nature of Case: Franchise dispute involving claims for violation of non-compete clause, misappropriation of trade secrets and license marks, and other claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Westdale Recap Props., Ltd. v. NP/I & G Wakefield Commons, LLC, No. 5:11-CV-659-D, 2013 WL 5424844 (E.D.N.C. Sep. 26, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Where producing party defended tardiness of production by explaining it had been awaiting agreement on protocol for ESI, as contemplated in parties? discovery plan, and proposed search terms from plaintiffs to conduct a supplemental search of ESI pursuant to such protocol, court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs? motion to compel, setting deadlines for plaintiffs to provide different custodians, dates and/or keyword search terms, and for production, resolving that production should be in the form of searchable PDF?s with the option of requesting particular ESI in native format if there is a demonstrable need, and requiring defendant to prepare privilege log meeting requirements of Rule 26(b)(5)(A) and duly signed by counsel for any otherwise responsive documents withheld on grounds of privilege

Nature of Case: Fraud, civil conspiracy, unfair and deceptive trade practices and negligent misrepresentation

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Ford Motor Co. v. Mich. Consol. Gas Co., No. 08-CV-13503, 2013 WL 5435184 (E.D. Mich. Sep. 27, 2013)

Dec 01 2013

Key Insight: Magistrate judge evaluated plaintiffs? work product, attorney-client privilege, joint defense and common interest privilege claims, set out various findings and guidelines, and ordered plaintiffs to update their respective privilege logs and produce certain documents; magistrate judge further ruled that, because Ford had earlier produced voluminous documents as they were kept in the usual course of business, it had no further duty under Rule 34 or otherwise to organize and label the documents to correspond with individual requests for production

Nature of Case: Current and former property owners sued former operator of manufactured gas plant

Electronic Data Involved: Environmental investigation, remedy assessment and allocation related documents

Tag:FRCP 34(b) Procedure or Format