FRCP 34(b) Procedure or Format – Page 17

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

United States v. O’Keefe, 537 F.Supp.2d 14 (D.D.C. 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola held that Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may provide guidance in criminal cases in determining whether format of production by government was appropriate, and if ESI is demanded in criminal case, but request does not specify a form of production, responding party must produce ESI in form in which it is ordinarily maintained or in reasonably usable form or forms

Nature of Case: Criminal case against State Department employee for receiving, quid pro quo, gifts and other benefits for expediting visa requests

Electronic Data Involved: Hard copy and electronic files

Autotech Techs. Ltd. P’ship v. Automationdirect.com, Inc., 2008 WL 783301 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where requesting party complained that information generated and produced in response to agreed-upon keyword search of ?Goldmine? database was inadequate and not rectified by index of customer information documents subsequently provided, and that additional information (such as dates) was needed, court ordered parties to confer about how date information could be retrieved and granted motion to compel only to the extent that requesting party?s consultant would be allowed to run his original protocol to determine if date information should have been produced in conformity with that protocol; costs to be borne by requesting party unless it appeared that date information had been wrongly withheld, in which case responding party would bear all of the costs, expenses and attorneys’ fees resulting from nonproduction of the information

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Goldmine customer relations management database

Peterson v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2008 WL 1930453 (C.D. Ill. May 1, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiffs’ request for sanctions, additional depositions and for an order compelling production of electronic data and signal plans in light of plaintiffs’ failure to diligently pursue such requests and failure to establish need for additional discovery at late stage of litigation; court granted plaintiffs opportunity to show that motion was substantially justified and deferred consideration of defendant’s request for expenses incurred in opposing motion

Nature of Case: Claims arising from collision between freight train and automobile

Electronic Data Involved: Data from event recorders and other components and equipment of the crossing signal system

L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, 2008 WL 2073958 (E.D. Cal. May 14, 2008)

Dec 01 2008

Key Insight: Where defendants converted ESI from their original format, which had been searchable and sortable, into PDF files which did not have these capabilities, court cited Advisory Committee Notes to the 2006 amendment to FRCP 34(a)(1)(A) and found that defendants violated Rule 34 by producing documents which were not searchable or sortable, notwithstanding that plaintiffs did not request the documents in native electronic format; court ruled on various other discovery disputes and awarded plaintiffs monetary sanctions in light of defendants’ “purposeful foot dragging on discovery” and resulting prejudice to plaintiffs

Nature of Case: Class action lawsuit regarding California’s treatment of juvenile wards and parolees

Electronic Data Involved: Databases and other ESI

Tag:FRCP 34(b) Procedure or Format