Metadata – Electronic Discovery Law

ESI Protocols: Courts Hold Parties to Account for Failing to Comply with the Protocols They Negotiated

May 19 2023

To resolve electronic discovery issues early in legal proceedings, parties often negotiate ESI protocols that define the required formats of production, outline the scope of record preservation required for the matter, and address key issues regarding privilege, confidentiality, and other key discovery considerations. But what happens when parties establish requirements in their ESI protocols that they later cannot fulfill? Three recent case opinions reflect how courts can react negatively to such situations.

Aminov v. Berkshire Hathaway Guard Insurance Companies (E.D.N.Y. 2022)

Mar 03 2022

Key Insight: Defendant moved to compel plaintiff to produce for forensic examination the cell phone that recorded videos produced by Plaintiff. The court denied the motion, noting there must be good cause to order forensic examination when a party has already produced the electronic information sought and in native format. Defendant alleges there was a reason to believe metadata for the video was altered based on counsel’s own analysis using a free online metadata tool. After investigating the online metadata tool, including uploading a court document that did not contain any metadata, the court found that the tool shows an automatic message for every file that is uploaded to the website indicating that metadata “could have been changed or deleted” – something court noted “is hardly the thing on which one should base a motion to compel.”

Nature of Case: Breach of Contract

Electronic Data Involved: Cell phone

Case Summary

Arconic Corp. v. Novelis Inc. (W.D. Pa. 2022)

Feb 10 2022

Key Insight: The court denied plaintiff’s motion for recusal based on metadata in the court’s orders that suggested that the special master was the author of some of the court’s opinions in the case. Plaintiff claimed the author field on the metadata suggested the special master was the author of the court’s opinions but the court explained how this opinion was wrong. The author field of the metadata for a document created from a template will continue to reflect the name of the person who originally created the document unless that name is changed. The court did not change or remove the author field when using a template document that had previously been prepared in the case but acknowledged going forward it would revise the authorship data on its court orders as needed. Further, the court’s decisions demonstrate that the opinions and orders are those of the court, acting independently of the special master, based on the differences between the court’s decisions and the related R&Rs by the special master.

Nature of Case: Trade Secrets

Electronic Data Involved: Metadata

Case Summary

Axis Insurance Company v. American Specialty Insurance & Risk Services, Inc. (N.D. Ind. 2021)

Key Insight:

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel sought missing documents and communications from, and the correction of metadata “issues” from Defendant and its parent company (via third party subpoena), and sought an award of attorney’s fees and costs. The Court partially granted the Motion, requiring Defendant to produce responsive communications and documents in its possession, and to conduct a search for such documents and communications, and provide an affidavit detailing the steps it took to search for said items.

The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel insofar as it sought the metadata of documents responsive to its initial requests for production. Regarding the third party subpoena to Defendant’s parent company, the Court found that the office of the parent company subject to the subpoena was outside of the Court’s jurisdiction and consequently, denied Plaintiff’s Motion insofar as it sought to enforce the subpoena. Finally, Court awarded Plaintiff fees and costs regarding the missing documents, but not the “issues” with metadata.

Nature of Case: Breach of Contract

Electronic Data Involved: Emails, Metadata, PDFs

Case Summary

Doe v. Purdue University (N.D. Ind. July 2, 2021)

Jul 07 2021

Key Insight: Defendants filed a motion for spoliation of evidence and sanctions after plaintiff failed to provide Snapchat data consistent with the parties’ joint stipulation and prior court orders, and deleted certain Snapchat files that were subject to the stipulation and orders. Plaintiff admitted he had deleted some files from his “memories” folder in Snapchat, but claimed they were irrelevant, and he did so to free up memory on his phone. The court found plaintiff was under a duty to preserve the Snapchat data and he breached that duty when he destroyed the data. Without the deleted files and believing plaintiff’s claim that he deleted the files to free up space and memory on his phone, the court could not find that plaintiff did so with the purpose of hiding adverse information and declined to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint. The court imposed monetary sanctions and ordered plaintiff to pay defendants’ attorney’s fees and costs associated with litigating the motion, and allowed defendants to introduce a limited jury instruction regarding the destruction of ESI.

Nature of Case: Civil Rights

Electronic Data Involved: Snapchat data

Case Summary

Cody v. City of St. Louis (E.D. Mo. 2021)

Jun 16 2021

Key Insight: After changing counsel, plaintiff sought an order compelling the defendant to reproduce prior ESI productions and to produce all future ESI productions in either native format or accompanied by metadata identifying the custodians, recipient, and date of the document. In denying plaintiff’s motion to compel, the court noted the parties “could and should have reached agreement on the format of ESI production in the nearly three years the case was pending” and plaintiff never requested a specific format previously, and also produced ESI to defendant in non-native format without metadata. Nothing in Rule 34(b) nor the Advisory Committee Notes indicates whether metadata must be produced to be considered reasonably usable. Thus, “absent a specific request to the contrary or special circumstances not at issue here, courts regularly find that searchable PDF documents constitute a reasonably usable form.”

Nature of Case: Civil Rights

Electronic Data Involved: PDF Documents

Case Summary

Haywood v. Wexford Health Sources, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2021)

Jun 03 2021

Key Insight: Plaintiff filed a motion to compel and for sanctions against defendants, claiming the defendants’ production of ESI relating to the treatment of plaintiff’s mental illness was produced in PDF as opposed to its native Excel format and not reasonably usable. The court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel, ordering defendants to produce the ESI in their native Excel format and awarded plaintiff’s counsel $25,000 in fees. The court rejected defendants’ argument that it converted the Excel data into PDF because it was required under HIPAA and Illinois law given the protective order in place. The court further found the ESI in PDF form was not “reasonably usable” under Rule 34(b). There is missing data and text, and it eliminated plaintiff’s ability to sort and organize the data contained in the spreadsheets. Quoting another court’s decision, the court noted: “One of the unique strengths of Excel software is the ability to implement calculations and formulae that are not evident in a PDF version[.]” This forced plaintiff to sort more than 270,000 pages of information, much of which is either redacted or difficult to read.

Nature of Case: Prisoner Civil Rights

Electronic Data Involved: Prisoner Records

Case Summary

In re: CCA Recordings 2255 Litigation v. United States of America (D. Kan. 2021)

Jun 01 2021

Key Insight: Petitioners filed an action alleging the government violated their Sixth Amendment rights by recording their conversations and meetings with counsel while detained at Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). Petitioners sought spoliation sanctions against CCA, alleging an upgrade to the operating system where the recordings were saved wiped all metadata that would have shown if the US attorneys viewed the video recordings containing privileged communications. The court denied the motion, finding petitioners could not establish the threshold question: whether any metadata actually existed to show who logged in to view the recordings. “If there is no evidence that logging metadata ever existed, it could not have been intentionally destroyed to deprive petitioners of its use, and there can be no spoliation as it relates to that specific ESI relevant to petitioners’ claims.”

Nature of Case: Violation of Sixth Amendment Rights

Electronic Data Involved: Video Recordings

Case Summary

Edwards v. Junior State of Am. Found. (E.D. Tex. 2021)

Apr 23 2021

Key Insight: At issue were “racist and homophobic Facebook messages” one high school student allegedly sent to another high school student (plaintiff), both of whom were members of the defendant’s youth organization. Plaintiffs provided a partial .jpeg image (screenshot) of the alleged message and defendant requested additional ESI to authenticate the messages, namely HTML or JSON files, and associated metadata. Plaintiffs never objected to the discovery requests and failed to produce any documents for over a year. Plaintiffs then admitted through a digital forensics experts that the Facebook account had been permanently deleted and the native versions of the alleged messages had been destroyed. The court declined to dismiss the case under Rule 37(b)(2)(A) but applied Rule 37(e), finding that the native messages were relevant ESI and were deleted around the time plaintiffs had a duty to preserve them, and they could not be adequately replaced by the available screenshots. Therefore, plaintiffs would be precluded from offering any evidence about the alleged messages.

Nature of Case: Civil Rights

Electronic Data Involved: Facebook Messages

Case Su m mary

In re: 3M Combat Arms Earplug Prods. Liab. Litig. (N.D. Fla., Oct. 2020)

Key Insight: In their discovery requests, Defendants sought data concerning the Plaintiff’s use of social media and text messages concerning matters relevant to the litigation. After Plaintiff provided responses to these discovery requests, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Plaintiff to submit to a forensic examination of his mobile phone. Defendants based their Motion on the arguments of ensuring complete collection of data from the mobile phone, and more specifically, complete data of Plaintiff’s use of social media messaging and text messaging with several parties on said mobile phone.

The Court denied Defendants’ Motion because it found that the electronic stored information (ESI) already produced was complete and/or sufficient due to the Plaintiff already working with an ESI expert to obtain the requested data, particularly from the mobile device. In short, the Defendants’ lacked a sufficient reason to believe that the data already produced was not complete.

Similarly, the Defendants failed to demonstrate that a forensic examination of the mobile device would produce relevant data showing that Plaintiff had a pattern or practice of deleting the above mentioned messages. Moreover, the data produced by the examination would only show that a message was deleted, not when or why the message(s) were deleted, the contents of the message(s), or a pattern of deleting messages. In sum, the Court found that the requested forensic examination would be “disproportionate to the slight importance” it would provide to the litigation.

Nature of Case: Product Liability

Electronic Data Involved: Cellular Phone, Text Messages, Social Media, Social Media Messages,

Case Summary

Tag:Metadata