FRCP 34(b) Procedure or Format – Page 9

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

E.A.F.F. v. United States, No. SA-08-CA-124-XR, 2014 WL 1652598 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 23, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Rejecting plaintiff’s challenge to $65,000 for scanning expenses as taxable costs where discovery production was voluminous and parties had agreed that defendants would produce their responsive documents in electronic format, court ruled that scanning of documents to create digital duplicates amounted to “making copies of materials” under Section 1920(4); however, because invoices indicated that requested costs may include more than just scanning, court would allow defendants to supplement bill of costs to specifically identify which portion of invoice was for scanning/making copies or to clarify that the entire cost was, in fact, for scanning/making copies

Nature of Case: Unaccompanied alien minors brought action against Office of Refugee Resettlement alleging they were physically and sexually abused while in detention awaiting final adjudication of their immigration status

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic images of paper documents

Sexton v. Lecavalier, 11 F. Supp. 3d 439 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court declined to hold third party in contempt where failure to produce Gmail in native format was result of good faith (but mistaken) belief that Gmail emails cannot be produced in native format; opinion noted options for production of Gmail emails in native format

Electronic Data Involved: Gmail emails

FDIC v. Bowden, No. CV413-245, 2014 WL 2548137 (S.D. Ga. June 6, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where FDIC spent $614,000 to digitally scan about 2.01 terabytes of data or 153.6 million pages of documents after taking over failing bank, and before any written document requests were served, court evaluated parties? competing proposals for conducting e-discovery, discussed the governing standards for manner of document production, formatting issues, and cost-shifting for digital format conversion expenses, and ultimately approved protocol offered by FDIC; court further instructed that, in the event of any further ESI-protocol disagreement or objection to the court?s decision, the parties must first confer and attempt to craft a joint ESI protocol or consent order in light of the principles highlighted in the court?s ruling

Nature of Case: Bank receiver brought bank mismanagement case against 16 of bank’s former directors and officers

Electronic Data Involved: Records of failed bank

Nat?l Jewish Health v. WebMD Health Servs. Grp., Inc., No. 12-cv-02834-WYD-MJW, 2014 WL 2118585 (D. Colo. May 21, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where Plaintiff maintained emails in Enterprise Vault with journaling capabilities (which captures and stores all emails in one place) and all ESI produced was searchable, sortable, paired with relevant metadata and included Concordance load files (and where emails were also produced with their attachments), the special master found the production met the requirements of 34(b)(2)(E)(ii) and was both properly produced in the form in which it was ordinarily maintained and in a reasonably usable form and further found that although 34(b)(2)(E)(i) did not apply to ESI, the production also satisfied the traditional requirement to produce documents (which ESI is not) in the manner in which it is kept in the usual course of business; special master made clear that a custodian need not be an individual and that ?[a] company, through an IT department, can serve as the custodian of electronic files kept on company servers.?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI, email

West Plains, LLC v. Retzlaff Grain Co., No. 8:13CV47, 2014 WL 2515198 (D. Neb. June 3, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where plaintiff produced thousands of documents on disc and in hard copy, and divided some of the electronic documents into files on the disc but otherwise provided no indices to guide defendants to responsive materials, court found plaintiff?s responses insufficient and ordered plaintiff to produce index or other tool to guide defendants to the documents responsive to each individual request for production

Nature of Case: Company sued competitor, and former employees who had resigned to join competitor, for misappropriation of confidential business information, tortious interference with business relationships, and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: ESI produced on disc

Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Vistana Condominium Owners Assoc., No. 2:12-cv-01324-JAD-NJK, 2014 WL 2041950 (D. Nev. May 16, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendant produced documents as they were received from third parties and with metadata allowing plaintiff to identify the documents by bates range, file path, and document title, court found that the production ?largely complied? with Rule 34 and the obligation to produce documents as kept in the usual course of business and that sanctions were not warranted but also found that the responses created unnecessary obstacles to the plaintiff and ordered defendant to indicate whether the documents it produced were actually responsive, reasoning that plaintiff should not have to ?guess at which requests were responded to and which were not?

Electronic Data Involved: ESI

Melian Labs, Inc. v. Triology, LLC, No. 13-cv-04791-SBA (KAW), 2014 WL 4386439 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 4, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Court denied defendant?s motion to compel production of all emails and spreadsheets in native format, since the parties? Joint Rule 26(f) Report was a stipulation and therefore Rule 34(b) did not govern their dispute; the parties? Joint Rule 26(f) Report did not require that all ESI be produced electronically but only stated that ESI may be produced in paper, PDF, or TIFF and that electronic files should be produced in native format when it was more practicable to do so; defendant failed to articulate why metadata was important to emails; and plaintiff had already produced some of its spreadsheets in native format (Excel) where the printouts were difficult to read

Nature of Case: Trademark infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email and spreadsheets

A & R Body Specialty & Collision Works, Inc. v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., No. 3:07CV929 (WWE), 2014 WL 4437684 (D. Conn. Sep. 9, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Magistrate judge denied as moot defendants’ request for plaintiffs’ consent to release emails stored with third party vendors Earthlink and AT&T in light of vendors? representations that, when an Earthlink.net or ATT.net user deletes an email from Outlook, the email simultaneously is deleted from the vendor’s server and cannot be recovered; magistrate judge also denied plaintiffs’ request for defendants to produce a merged data set, where one data set had 157 columns and was extracted from third-party provider?s system, and second set had more information but used different field identifiers, since a party cannot be compelled to create a document for its production and the creation of requested data compilation would inherently require the creation of a ?document,? and producing party is not required to produce ESI in more than one form

Nature of Case: Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email, data

Castillon v. Corrections Corp. of Am., No. 1:12-cv-005590EJL, 2014 WL 517505 (D. Idaho Feb. 7, 2014)

Dec 01 2014

Key Insight: Where defendant produced data from timekeeping system in searchable .PDF format and provided attestation from the vice president of technology and chief information officer that that .PDF was the ?only, built-in, reasonably accessible data format? and that producing in the requested format would require Defendant to undertake the ?lengthy and daunting? task of writing a script and where Plaintiffs did not specify the format of production in their request, the court declined to compel re-production of the at-issue data, but noted that if Plaintiffs were willing to pay for the expense of writing a script, ?they may approach Defendant with such a request.?

Nature of Case: Prisoners’ civil rights

Electronic Data Involved: Data from timekeeping system

Tag:FRCP 34(b) Procedure or Format