FRCP 34(b) Procedure or Format – Page 8

Dekeyser v. Thyssenkrupp Waupaca Inc., No. 08-c-0488, 2015 WL 10937559 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 10, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

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

Osborne v. Billings Clinic, No. CV 14-126-BLG-SPW, 2015 WL 1412626 (D. Mont. Mar. 26, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

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

Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Kelt, Inc., No. 6:14-cv-740-Orl-41TBS, 2015 WL 1470971 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

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

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Cuker Interactive, LLC, NOo. 5:14-CV-5262, 2015 WL 11120890 (W.D. Ark. April 9, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

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

Burnett v. Ford Motor Co., No. 3:13?cv?14207, 2015 WL 1650439 (S.D. W. Va. April 14, 2015); Burd v. Ford Motor Co., No. 3:13?cv?20976, 2015 WL 1650447 (S.D. W. Va. April 14, 2015); Johnson v. Ford Motor Co., No. 3:13?cv?06529, 2015 WL 1650428 (S.D. W. Va. April 14, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Inadvertently produced ESI

Nature of Case: Product Liability

Lutzeier v. Citigroup Inc., No. 4:14-cv-00183-RLW, 2015 WL 430196 (E.D. Mo. Feb 2, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

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

Davenport v. Charter Comm?cns., LLC, No. 2015 WL 1286372 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 20, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

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

Spilker v. Medtronic Inc., No. 4:13-CV-76-H, 2014 WL 1643258 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 13, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Where ?Defendants provided Plaintiff with fully searchable documents, sortable by metadata fields, in a folder structure organized by custodian,? the court found this was ?sufficient to satisfy the requirements for document production of ESI under Rule 34? and declined to compel Defendants to provide an index

Nature of Case: Claims arising from death during medical procedure

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Arkansas River Power Auth. v. Babcock & Wilcox Power Generation Grp., Inc., No. 14-cv-00368-CMA-NYW, 2015 WL 2128312 (D. Colo. May 5, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Addressing several disputes, court concluded that parties having agreed on an ESI production ?must only comply with Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(ii)? and that the question was therefore whether the defendant ?produced its ESI in the form in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms. The rule clearly requires one or the other, but not both.?; where defendant produced majority of its documents in a reasonably usable form (TIFF), court declined to compel production of additional metadata

Nature of Case: Breach of contract and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Am. Fed. Of Musicians of the U.S. and Canada v. Skodam Films, LLC, NO. 3:15-mc-122-M-BN, 2015 WL 7771078 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 3, 2015)

Dec 01 2015

Key Insight: Court concluded non-party?s objections to the at-issue subpoena were subject to Rule 34 requirements for objections and, addressing the non-party?s claims of overbreadth and burden, modified the subpoena upon finding that the document requests were ?facially overbroad and pose[d] an undue burden? because they called for the production of ?apparently every document? related to the making of the at-issue movie

Nature of Case: Breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Third party discovery, including ESI

Tag:FRCP 34(b) Procedure or Format