Key Insight: Although ?[t]he rules do not require a party to produce ESI in the form most helpful to the opposing party[,]? the court ordered Defendant to produce additional discovery in TIFF format and to produce the metadata for all documents already produced (in PDF format)
Nature of Case: Class action
Electronic Data Involved: ESI (.xls, proprietary format)
Key Insight: Addressing Plaintiff?s Motion to Compel, court overruled Defendant?s objection to producing ESI in native format with metadata where Defendant failed to indicate in its objection the form of production it intended to use instead and did not support its objection by explaining why it could not or should not be required to produce as requested and, in fact, admitted that it had previously produced material in native format; court denied without prejudice Plaintiff?s motion to compel responses outlining Defendant?s search efforts (sometimes called “discovery on discovery”) where Plaintiff?s counsel failed to confer with Defense counsel prior to bringing the motion, as is required by the District of Kansas? ESI Guidelines
Nature of Case: Title VII: racial discrimination, retaliatory conduct
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Where the parties agreed to a Joint Discovery Plan requiring production in PDF unless metadata was requested and that in such cases the parties should meet and confer to discuss the format of production in good faith and where Defendant made such a request and sought to confer but was ignored, court ordered Plaintiff to re-produce emails with associated metadata at its own expense
Electronic Data Involved: Emails and metadata
Key Insight: Where Defendant initially produced material safety data sheets in TIFF format and later in hard copy but Plaintiff complained they were ?extremely difficult? to utilize because of the number of duplicates, the ?absence of organization? and the small font size (despite having relied upon the productions for purposes of summary judgment), court was swayed by Plaintiff?s expert?s articulation regarding the lack of burden rather than Defendant?s vague attestations of the burden of reproduction and, reasoning that Plaintiff had not produced all of the information requested in its initial production (e.g., certain data fields from the database in which the material safety data sheets were maintained) and that the prior productions were in a form that degraded searchability, ordered reproduction of the requested information i.e., ?all data and information maintained in [Defendant?s] databases relating to the MSDS and all data inputted by [Defendant] concerning the same, in an electronic, organized and usable format.?
Nature of Case: FLSA
Electronic Data Involved: Contents of database
Key Insight: Where requesting party failed to request a specific format of production and the responding party therefore produced in PDFs, the court reasoned that Defendant failed to assert that it could not produce the information as it was originally kept and that Plaintiff should not be at a ?disadvantage by having to slog through thousands of pages of records in unusable form? and granted Plaintiff?s motion to compel production of the at-issue medical records in the manner in which they were maintained
Electronic Data Involved: Electronically stored medical records
Key Insight: Where Plaintiff produced documents ?en masse? without any indication of what was produced or what request the documents were responsive to and claimed that they were produced as kept in the usual course of business and thus in compliance with Rule 34, the court reasoned that a party who produces documents as kept in the usual course has the burden of proving they were in fact produced in that manner and that a party may not wait until a motion to compel is filed to provide that information and concluded that Plaintiff had not complied with the requirements of Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i) and ordered that Plaintiff must identify by Bates number which documents were responsive to each request
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Where parties agreed to produce in native format but Defendant then loaded its information into a hosted database and indicated that Plaintiff could view the docs, including some metadata, but could only receive production of specified documents in a static image format, at a cost for each such ?exportation,? and where Defendant argued such production complied with Rule 26(f) and that the data was in a reasonably usable form, the court held the parties to their agreement, reasoning that ?[s]imply put, native format means native format? and also rejected Defendant?s security concerns, agreeing with Plaintiff that production on an external hard drive was acceptable; court?s order stated that parties would ?produce discovery from electronic or computer-based media directly to each other in native format, on external hard drives whenever possible.?
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Inadvertently produced ESI
Nature of Case: Product Liability
Key Insight: Addressing Plaintiff?s motion to add custodians, the court granted the motion, in part, but declined to compel the addition of high-level executives absent a showing that they had ?unique or personal knowledge of the subject matter that warrants their information?; Court found that the current ?search criteria adequately ensure[d]? the production of relevant documents and declined Plaintiff?s request for additional search terms except the phrase ?consent order? where confusion existed as to the existence of ?other? consent orders relevant to the case; where plaintiff was unsatisfied with Defendant?s production of more than 46,000 documents ?without providing any indication as to which documents are responsive to which of Plaintiff?s fifty-eight (58 ) enumerated requests,? but where the defendant represented that their production was ?fully text-searchable and contain[s] metadata permitting Plaintiff to identify, among other things, the custodians of the document, recipients, date and other key information,? the court found that the production was ?in a reasonably useable form or forms and/or the production is searchable, sortable and paired with relevant metadata? and thus was compliant with the parties? ESI agreement and with Rule 34
Nature of Case: Wrongful discharge; Age Discrimination; Dodd Frank; Sarbanes-Oxley
Electronic Data Involved: ESI
Key Insight: Court denied Plaintiffs? motion to compel re-production of time records in .xls format where Defendant first produced the records in a searchable PDF format, generally found by courts to be ?reasonably usable,? and where the parties? discovery plan contemplated the possible reproduction of certain information upon a showing of good cause in situations where the data or metadata was not adequately captured, but where the court found that Plaintiffs desire to manipulate the documents with greater ease did not constitute good cause; court stated: ?Such difficulties would have been a good reason for Plaintiffs to specify a particular format in their request for production, but are not sufficient ?good cause? to force Defendant to reformat and produce data which it has already provided.?
Nature of Case: FLSA Collective Action
Electronic Data Involved: Electronic Time Clock Records
Copyright © 2025, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.