FRCP 34(b) Procedure or Format – Page 17

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

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

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