FRCP 34(b) Procedure or Format – Page 13

E.E.O.C. v. DHL Express, No. 10 C 6139, 2011 WL 6825516 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 28, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where DHL produced ?28,000 spreadsheets worth of information? with an index containing metadata for each spreadsheet and any emails to which the spreadsheets were attached but where plaintiff nonetheless claimed that the burden of sifting through the spreadsheets was unduly onerous and sought to compel production of information to identify each spreadsheet and that defendant organize them according to request, the court noted its authority under Rule 34 to impose requirements ?different from those in the rule? and ordered defendant to identify which request each spreadsheet or group of spreadsheets was responsive to and to provide an explanation for spreadsheets not attached to an email

Electronic Data Involved: Spreadsheets

Morris v Scenera Research LLC, No. 09 CVS 19678, 2011 WL 3808544 (N.C. Super. Ct. Aug. 26, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court upheld clawback agreement between the parties which held that inadvertent production would not result in waiver; where parties entered into 26(f) agreement regarding what metadata need be produced but where plaintiff moved to compel production of additional fields because those provided did not allow him to search effectively or identify the source of particular documents, the court entered into an extensive analysis of the ?form? and ?organization? requirements in Rule 34 and withheld ruling until defendant could provide evidence regarding the burden of providing an index that could allow identification of the source of each document

Nature of Case: State employment claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, metadata

City of Colton v. Amer. Promotional Events, Inc., 277 F.R.D. 578 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Affirming the order of the magistrate judge, the Court found that Rule 34 production requirements applied equally to hard copy and ESI, that the Case Management Order did not exempt the parties from the requirements of Rule 34, and that where defendants did not produce ESI as maintained in the usual course of business, they would be required to label their productions to correspond to the categories in the request, or, as offered by plaintiff, could re-produce ESI in native format in lieu of labeling

Nature of Case: CERCLA, RCRA – seeking cleanup costs from owner of property formerly used as ammunition storage

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Corbello v. Devito, 2010 WL 4703519 (D. Nev. Nov. 12, 2010); 2011 WL 1466605 (D. Nev. Apr. 15, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where defendants had already produced ?hundreds of scripts and draft scripts? in .pdf format, a hardcopy notebook of page changes to the script, and the only two comments to the script made using the ?notes function? the Screenwriter software at issue, the court found that the production of scripts and drafts in .pdf was a reasonably usable format and that ?additional production of [the] materials in native format would be an unnecessary burden and unjustifiable waste of time and resources? and denied plaintiffs? motion to compel; in second opinion, court reconsidered prior approval or production in .pdf format and ordered production in native format

Electronic Data Involved: Native production of all changes made to the relevant script for all productions

Quality Inv. Props. Santa Clara, LLC v. Serrano Electric, Inc., No. C 09-5376 LHK (PSG), 2011 WL 1364005 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where parties failed to meet and confer Pursuant to Rule 26(f) and thus failed to agree on format of production, and where plaintiff?s production was not in the format maintained in the usual course of business or organized and labeled according to the categories in the discovery requests, court ordered re-production of plaintiff?s ESI in a format agreed upon by the parties

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Adams v. Allianceone, Inc., No. 08-CV-248-JAH (WVG), 2011 WL 2066617 (S.D. Cal. May 25, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Court denied motion for sanctions for defendants? production in PDF format where plaintiff?s failed to request a specific format of production; where PDF format was ?reasonably usable? in light of the problems with the native format; where Rule 34 advisory committee notes allow for the translation of electronic data to allow production in a reasonably usable format; where there was ?insufficient evidence? to suggest that the data was converted from its native format to hinder plaintiff?s search ability; and where defendant ended up producing the native data to plaintiff?s satisfaction after conferring

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Innis Arden Golf Club, Inc. v. O?Brien & Gere Eng?rs. Inc., No. CV106006581, 2011 WL 6117908 (Conn. Super. Ct. Nov. 18, 2011)

Dec 01 2011

Key Insight: Where plaintiff produced 64,350 pages of documents in electronic form without identifying what request the documents were responsive to, the court ordered the parties to cooperate to prepare a load file to assist in defendant?s review and ordered defendant to bear the cost and, where the court agreed with defendants that metadata was an ?important source for the defendants as part of the orderly production? of ESI, the court ordered the parties to cooperate ?in completing the metadata requested by the defendants in an appropriate format? and that ?outside costs, if any, other than copying costs for the metadata [would] also be borne by the defendants?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, metadata

Covad Commc?n Co. v. Revonet, Inc., 267 F.R.D. 14(D.D.C. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court declined to compel production of non-email ESI in native format where defendant previously produced the information sought in hard copy, reasoning that native production is not required by the rules and that the documents, previously produced in hard copy, were in a sufficiently usable format absent a showing that the metadata would ?yield an answer that the hard copy will not?; court also recognized obligation to seek ?just, speedy, and inexpensive? adjudication and to limit burdensome discovery where defendant represented significant hardship to re-produce in native format

Nature of Case: Misappropriation and conversion of trade secret information

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Bellinger v. Astrue, 2010 WL 1270003 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 1, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: In an opinion addressing a number of discovery issues, the court declined to compel production of email in native format where defendant provided a ?reasonable explanation? for why it chose to produce in hard copy, namely, because ?they could more easily be reviewed for responsiveness and privilege?

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Phillip M. Adams & Assoc., LLC v. Fujitsu Ltd., 2010 WL 1901776 (D. Utah May 10, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Addressing a number of issues related to the format and organization of plaintiff?s production and a motion to compel plaintiff?s response to interrogatories, court ordered the production of ESI in its native format where plaintiff failed to object to a request for the same but, where native production was not specified, plaintiff was allowed to select the form of production; unable to determine whether the burden of production of computer data from all computers used by plaintiff over a period of many years would outweigh the value of production, court ordered plaintiff to produce a detailed inventory of each computer and to allow sampling of one or two computers of defendant?s choice in order to determine the need for additional discovery

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, hard drives

Tag:FRCP 34(b) Procedure or Format