FRCP 34(b) Procedure or Format – Page 16

Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners, LLC 2009 WL 1748526 (D. Mass. June 22, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Briefly but comprehensively addressing a number of electronic discovery issues, court declined to shift discovery costs to the requesting party, declined to order defendants to bear the cost of changing the format of their responsive documents for production (unless such conversion was necessary to render the documents ?usable?), declined to order the production of all metadata and instead limited production to 12 fields of metadata proposed by plaintiffs, and ordered the production of spreadsheets and privilege logs in native format

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, metadata

Henderson v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 2009 WL 1152019 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 29, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Stating that Rule 34 does not give a party the right to conduct their own search of an opposing party?s electronic devices and holding that counterclaim plaintiff must request specific categories of information and allow counterclaim-defendants to conduct their own search for responsive data, court denied counterclaim-defendants? motion to compel production of all computers, hard drives, and other devices containing electronically stored information

Nature of Case: Enforceability of confdientiality and non-compete agreements, misappropriation of confidential inforamtion

Electronic Data Involved: Computers, hard drives, electronic storage devices

Flying J. Inc. v. Pilot Travel Ctrs. LLC, 2009 WL 1835000 (D. Utah June 25, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs? request for production sought both data and summaries of data, court granted plaintiffs? motion to compel production of the requested data but found defendants were not required to compile or summarize information in their response (?[A] request for production cannot require a responding party to compile and summarize.?); court rejected defendant?s argument that production of the requested data would be unreasonably burdensome without reciprocal productions from plaintiff finding ?[a] party is not excused from making disclosures because ?another party has not made it disclosures.??

Electronic Data Involved: Transaction data from defendant’s database(s)

QuinStreet v. Ferguson, 2009 WL 1789433 (W.D. Wash. June 22, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where defendant responded to plaintiff?s requests for production by producing a link to the responsive electronically stored information and where the link appeared to be thousands of pages of raw code and the emails could not be separated from one another, court ordered re-production of the information in a reasonably readable format or for defendant to cooperate to allow conversion of the ESI by a third party, for defendant to number each email to indicate to which request it was responsive, and for a statement regarding whether production was complete

Nature of Case: Defamation, interference with contractual relations, and intentional interference with prospective economic damages

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, emails

Craig & Landreth, Inc. v. Mazda Motor of Am., Inc., 2009 WL 2245108 (S.D. Ind. July 27, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Rejecting defendant?s argument that production of ESI in PDF format was ?well within the requirements? of the rules where plaintiffs sought production in a searchable format and where the rules prohibit conversion to a more burdensome format for production, court granted plaintiffs? motion to compel and ordered production in native format and also ordered defendant to produce ?the appropriate individual? to assist plaintiffs in ?understanding how to manipulate the ?native format?? ESI produced

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Mancini v. Ins. Corp. of N.Y., 2009 WL 1765295 (S.D. Cal. June 18, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiffs responded to defendants? requests for production by producing 73 CDs containing the entire universe of documents from an underlying litigation, court held that plaintiffs ?cannot fulfill their discovery obligation?without referencing which specific documents were responsive to which specific request? and ordered plaintiffs to provide defendants with a list of documents responsive to each request

Nature of Case: Breach of insurance contract, failure to indemnify

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Cenveo Corp. v. S. Graphic Systs., 2009 WL 4042898 (D. Minn. Nov. 18, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff produced ESI in .pdf format despite defendants? request for production in native format and later argued the term ?native format? was undefined, court found the term ?native format? was unambiguous and granted defendants? motion to compel the production (and re-production as was necessary) of ESI in native format

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Rahman v. The Smith & Wollensky Rest. Group, Inc., 2009 WL 773344 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Court found plaintiff?s objections to defendants? production in pdf format ?without merit? where plaintiff failed to specify the preferred format of production and where absent such specification ?pdf format?is presumptively a ?reasonably useable form?? and similarly dismissed plaintiff?s substantive complaints regarding the production upon its determination that there was sufficient information for plaintiff?s expert to perform an analysis; court also declined to reconsider denial of spoliation sanctions in light of ambiguous deposition testimony regarding a possible delay in the implementation of a litigation hold and noted the absence of evidence that the gap in production was attributable to such delay

Nature of Case: Employment discrimination

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

FSP Stallion 1, LLC v. Luce, 2009 WL 2177107 (D. Nev. July 21, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where parties disagreed regarding the format of production and the need to produce and re-produce ESI with certain metadata, court ordered production of historical accounting data in native format, and for the production of responsive ESI ?in the form of TIF images or other agreed upon file format with the associated metadata?and the OCR file?; court allowed previously redacted privileged documents to be scanned to preserve the privilege

Nature of Case: Claims arising in part from false and misleading statements and omissions concerning financial condition of Golf Club

Electronic Data Involved: Financial information, emails, ESI

Covad Commc?ns Co. v. Revonet, Inc., 2009 WL 5377698 (D.D.C. Aug. 25, 2009)

Dec 01 2009

Key Insight: Where plaintiff represented that defendant had not fulfilled production obligations pursuant to the court?s order, court ordered defendant to respond to questions as to the completeness of its production and other related topics and affirmed its prior order requiring the re-production of 35,000 pages of emails previously produced in hard copy, despite the alleged burden of doing so; court also ordered defendant to respond to questions regarding the production of ESI, including spreadsheets, previously produced in hard copy and noted, ?Understandably, taking an electronic document such as a spreadsheet, printing it, cutting it up, and telling one’s opponent to paste it back together again, when the electronic document can be produced with a keystroke is madness in the world in which we live.?

Nature of Case: Misappropriation and conversion of trade secret information

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Tag:FRCP 34(b) Procedure or Format