FRCP 34(b) Procedure or Format – Page 14

Freihammer v. Powers, 2010 WL 2362957 (Minn. Ct. App. June 15, 2010)(Unpublished)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Trial court did not abuse discretion by denying motion for re-production of emails in electronic format where appellant was ably to testify that she did not send the emails at issue and that they were fabricated and thus the hard copy emails were admitted in a ?reasonably useable format? as is required by the rules

Nature of Case: Petition for harassment restraining order

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Estate of Boles v. Nat?l Heritage Realty, Inc., 2010 WL 2976076 (N.D. Miss. July 23, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied defendants? motion to produce the ?general ledger? in hard copy, with redactions, where the record made clear that defendants made no real attempt to comply with the court?s order compelling electronic production and, where defendant offered no proof of any court order prohibiting disclosure of the information contained in the ledger, where there was a sufficient protective order in place, and where ?matters involving payment of attorney fees are generally not privileged,? the court vacated prior orders allowing redactions and ordered production of the general ledger on CD or DVD within 3 days

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic copy of general ledger

Chapman v. Gen. Board of Pension & Health Benefits of the United Methodist Church, 2010 WL 2679961 (N.D. Ill. July 6, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to specify a form of production in its initial discovery requests and where defendant produced documents in hard copy, court found that no reproduction of electronic documents was required and rejected defendant?s arguments that plaintiff had failed to uphold her discovery obligations

Nature of Case: Violations of American’s with Disabilities Act

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic versions of previously produced hard copy

Estate of Boles v. Nat?l Heritage Realty, Inc., 2010 WL 3087472 (N.D. Miss. Aug. 6, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court denied motion for reconsideration of order compelling electronic production of defendants? general ledger and specifically rejected defendants? Rule 34 argument that because plaintiff failed to state the form of production, it could produce in hard copy, where defendants failed to specify a particular form of production in their response, where defendants failed to timely raise the Rule 34 issue (despite filing several motions discussing production of the ledger), and where defendants also failed to produce the evidence in the form in which it was ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form as is required by the rule; a Motion to Stay this order was thereafter denied, See Estate of Boles v. Nat?l Heritage 2010 WL 3218386 (N.D. Miss. Aug. 7, 2010)

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic copy of general ledger

Eli Lilly & Co. v. Wockhardt Ltd., 2010 WL 2605855 (S.D. Ind. June 22, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff had produced millions of pages organized as maintained in the usual course of business, court denied defendant?s motion to compel plaintiff to precisely match the documents produced with the request to which they responded, but, citing plaintiff?s ?demonstrated ample resources?, ordered plaintiff to ?generally match up its documents with defendant?s requests by letter, chart, or some form of index? within 14 days; court declined to compel production of metadata that did not exist and ?OCR information? but ordered plaintiff to provide ?custodian information? as to those documents which lacked it

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Chevron Corp. v. Stratus Consulting, Inc., 2010 WL 3489922 (D. Colo. Aug. 31, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted petitioner?s motion to compel production of subpoenaed information in native format, including re-production of materials already produced in .pdf format, where, despite respondent?s objections, the court determined the underlying metadata could be probative, but ordered petitioner to bear the cost where the subpoena had been ?less than clear? regarding the format of production and where respondents? claims of undue burden ?carrie[d] some legitimacy?; court?s opinion acknowledged respondent?s argument regarding the inability to Bates stamp native documents and ordered that the documents be Bates-stamped ?only as technologically possible?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Romero v. Allstate, 2010 WL 4138693 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 21, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Court granted plaintiffs? request for production of documents in native format and rejected defendants? arguments that plaintiffs must show a ?particularized need? for metadata where ?multiple courts? have held the burden falls to the objecting party to establish hardship or expense and where defendants failed to show how such a production would negatively impact them and noted that were such a showing necessary, plaintiff would have satisfied it; court ordered parties to meet and confer regarding the search terms, additional custodians, and other ?essential details about [defendants?] search methodology? going forward but declined to compel defendant to disclosure the methods utilized for past searching where such an order would result in undue burden to defendants; court declined to compel defendants to certify that they had complied with their discovery obligations absent evidence of spoliation

Nature of Case: Class action

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, metadata

Jannx Med. Sys., Inc. v. Methodist Hosps., Inc., 2010 WL 4789275 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 17, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where absent a specific request for native production plaintiff produced ESI in .pdf format and where defendant objected that .pdf format was not in compliance with Rule 34 because it was not produced in the ?fully searchable and manipulable? format in which it was normally maintained, the court acknowledged that ?there are circumstances in which .pdf format may satisfy discovery obligations? but found that plaintiff had converted the ESI into a more burdensome format in contravention of Rule 34 and granted the motion to compel ?to the extent that Defendants? request that Plaintiff produce responsive information in an electronic database format that allows the information to be reasonably usable, i.e., fully searchable and manipulable, with the connections between the data fields intact?

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic database data

Reckitt Benckiser, Inc. v. Watson Labs., Inc.-Florida, 2010 WL 4225865 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 21, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant ?unilaterally deviated? from the parties? agreement to produce in TIFF format and argued that the cost of conversion was not justified because the documents were ?minimally responsive?, court upheld the agreement and ordered the defendant to re-produce 19,000 documents that had been produced in native format

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Brinckerhoff v. Town of Paradise, 2010 WL 4806966 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Citing plaintiff?s failure to raise the issue of electronic discovery at the discovery conference, her failure to request ESI in discovery, and the lack of hardship in reviewing hard copy produced by defendants, the court generally denied plaintiff?s request to compel production of ESI in native format but, as to an evaluation of plaintiff, the court compelled the production of metadata and reasoned that the revelation of the date created and whether it was modified could be pivotal for the plaintiff

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:FRCP 34(b) Procedure or Format