FRCP 34(b) Procedure or Format – Page 15

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

Team Mktg. USA, Corp. v. Energy Brands, Inc., 913 N.Y.S.2d 874 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where plaintiff requested that defendant produce documents ?in the form and in the same order which in each file in which they existed prior to production? and where defendant then produced email in PDF format, the court denied plaintiff?s request to compel reproduction of the emails upon finding that plaintiff?s request did not constitute a request for a particular format and because the documents had already been produced in ?a reasonably usable format?

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Moore v. Shands Jacksonville Med. Ctr., 2010 WL 5137417 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 10, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where, absent specification of the format of production from either party, defendant produced video surveillance footage in what it considered a ?reasonably usable? format which required particular software for viewing, and where that software was available for free download on the internet, the court indicated it was ?not sympathetic? to plaintiff?s claims of undue burden as to the downloading the software and found that defendants had produced the video in a reasonably usable form

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Surveillance footage

Lynch v. Int. Assoc. of Machinist & Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, 2010 WL 5299879 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 17, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant claimed it did not regularly maintain the information requested and that to search for such information manually in its database would result in substantial cost, the court found that plaintiff had not shown that the likely results of a search would produce admissible evidence or that such evidence could justify the expense to defendant and denied plaintiff?s motion to compel, including plaintiff?s request for the entire database to be produced; where plaintiff?s request ?showed a preference for maintaining functionality but did not specify a format for response? and where the request for Excel format was verbal and occurred after defendant had begun to generate its production in Word format, court found production in Word format was sufficient and that defendant did not convert the information to remove functionality in contravention of Rule 34

Nature of Case: Allegations arising from union’s failure to pursue plaintiff?s grievances following his retirement

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Tran v. Sonic Indus. Servs., Inc., 2010 WL 5376348 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 21, 2010)

Dec 01 2010

Key Insight: Where defendant produced emails in ?approximate-date order,? the court ?agree[d] with Defendants? disjunctive reading of ?or? within Rule 34 that producing documents either in the method kept during the ordinary course of business or organized and labeled into categories corresponding with the request is sufficient to satisfy the rule? and denied plaintiff?s motion to compel re-production according to separate email accounts

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: Emails

Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Grand Trunk W. R.R. Co., 2009 WL 5151745 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 18, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court found plaintiff?s production of 1200 pages ?as they were kept in the normal course of business? was sufficient pursuant to Rule 34 where plaintiff ?identified the document custodians and the range of Bates number for each custodian?s set of documents, along with the date associated with document creation,? where documents were produced in the order they were found on each hard drive, and where email attachments were produced directly following the corresponding email; plaintiff?s failure to arrange emails chronologically was not fatal to plaintiff?s production

Nature of Case: Declaratory judgment action, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

Graske v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 647 F.Supp.2d 1105 (D. Neb. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where, when producing voluminous documents in response to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 they must be accompanied by indices ?to guide the interrogating party to the responsive documents? and where ?rules applicable to producing documents under Rule 33(d) are generally applicable to Rule 34?, court ordered defendant to provide more detailed responses to plaintiffs requests for discovery upon defendants? production of 7000 pages and indication that ?all 7000 pages of documents were responsive to each request?; court reasoned, ?Defendant’s claims that the documents are sufficiently organized because they are bates-stamped and scanned into a CD-ROM are unavailing. Defendant did not refer to specific bates numbers when it responded to the discovery requests at issue, and the fact that the documents can be electronically searched by key term is not sufficient to discharge defendant’s duty to sufficiently identify the location of the relevant documents.?

Nature of Case: Breach of faith and breach of fiduciary duty

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Synventive Molding Solutions, Inc. v. Husky Injection Molding Sys., Inc., 262 F.R.D. 365 (D. Va. 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff failed to issue a litigation hold, court ordered plaintiff to issue a litigation hold as to those personnel likely to possess discoverable evidence and to file a sworn declaration describing whether any files had been lost, the methods use to determine the existence of such a loss, the extend of the loss, and the nature of the litigation hold placed in response to the present order; court found plaintiff?s production of documents ?problematic? where it failed to organize the production according to Rule 34 and ordered plaintiff to ?amend? its production to comply; acknowledging that ?the identities of those in control of certain documents is information that may be as relevant as the documents? [substance]?, court ordered search and production of President?s documents despite claims that those documents were produced from other custodians

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Green v. Fluor Corp., 2009 WL 1668376 (M.D. La. June 11, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendants failed to request production of a photograph taken by cell phone in electronic format and later contested plaintiff?s format of production, court denied defendants? motion to compel production and inspection upon noting defendants? failure to contest the photos authenticity or to show that viewing the original would provide information not already in their possession and upon noting Rule 34?s instruction that a party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form

Electronic Data Involved: Photograph taken with cellular phone

Viacom Int?l, Inc. v. YouTube Inc., 2009 WL 102808 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court granted defendants? motion to compel production of third party?s materials related to plaintiffs despite objections where documents sought were relevant and where the alleged burden was insufficient in light of probable reimbursement to third party by plaintiffs, plaintiffs? performance of the necessary privilege review, and third party?s prior success in reducing the volume of responsive documents; where defendants sought third party material unrelated to plaintiffs, court ordered defendants and third party to meet and confer regarding scope of production and ordered defendants to bear the cost; court also ordered meet and confer regarding format of production, including specific consideration of granting defendants access to Kroll database where documents were stored

Nature of Case: Copyright infringement

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:FRCP 34(b) Procedure or Format