|
|
 |
 |
|
|
Form of Production of Electronic Data
ICE Corp. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88358 (D. Kan. Nov. 30, 2007).
Plaintiff moved for Defendant to reproduce documents in electronic form, however, this motion was denied as Plaintiff's original request for production did not specify electronic form.
Ryan v. Gifford, 2007 Del. Ch. LEXIS 168 (Del. Ch. Nov. 30, 2007).
Plaintiff moved to compel Defendants to produce metadata in this case involving stock options backdating, as the integrity of the dates entered on the documents could not be taken at face value.
Michigan First Credit Union v. Cumis Insurance Society, Inc., "Michigan II", 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84842 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 16, 2007).
Defendant was not required to produce metadata associated with electronic information or to produce the electronic information in native format based on Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 and the burdensome nature of the request.
Lawson v. Sun Microsystems, Inc.,, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65530 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 4, 2007).
Based on Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(ii), Defendant was ordered to re-produce all responsive documents in electronic form, as Plaintiff had requested this in writing prior to Defendant's production in hard copy form.
Auto Club Family Ins. Co. v. Ahner, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63809 (E.D. La. Aug. 29, 2007).
A third party insurance company produced a hard copy of a homeowners file, as they claimed that the electronic form was not reasonably accessible. However, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1)(D), the court found that the insurance company did not show that this form of production would result in undue burden or cost.
KnifeSource, LLC v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58829 (D. S.C. Aug. 10, 2007).
Defendant asserted that it should not be required to produce electronic copies of bank statements that they no longer kept in hard copy form, however, the court rejected this motion as Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B) only excuses discovery of electronic information if it is not reasonably accessible.
Lohmann & Rauscher, Inc. v. YKK (U.S.A.), Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15820 (D. Kan. Mar. 2, 2007).
The court found that an email message was not an appropriate supplemental response to a request for production, as Rule 34(b) requires such a response to have a signature by counsel.
In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litig., "ATM Fee II", 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47943 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2007).
Although Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 was amended to require electronic documents to be produced in their native form, the court held that, since this litigation was already two years old and they had previously agreed to a form of document production, the parties were permitted to produce electronic documents as TIFF files.
Feldman v. New York State Bridge Authority, 2007 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6062 (N.Y. App. Div. May 17, 2007).
The court ordered Defendant to provide specific information regarding how electronic data was produced to Plaintiff.
Cenveo Corp. v. Slater, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8281 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 31, 2007).
Defendant moved to remain in control of the imaging and examination of its computer systems, however, Plaintiff was permitted to appoint an expert to perform this work as the nature of this litigation was that Defendants had improperly utilized Plaintiff's information.
Williams v. Sprint/United Management Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5477 (D. Kan. Jan. 23, 2007).
Defendant was not sanctioned for delays in producing electronic data in a static image format, as Plaintiff did not request documents in native format and such delays were caused by unique circumstances.
DE Technologies, Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2769 (W.D. Va. Jan. 12, 2007).
As a sanction against Defendant, the magistrate judge found that Defendant could not use specific documents, however, this was modified at trial due to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b).
In re Payment Card Interchange Fee & Merchant Discount Antitrust Litigation, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2650 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 2007).
Plaintiffs were ordered to produce electronic documents with their metadata intact, however, documents that had already been produced without their metadata did not have to be produced again.
Graham v. Cingular Wireless LLC, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 595 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 3, 2007).
Defendant did not produce attachments to email messages, nor did they produce a privilege log for such attachments, therefore, Plaintiff was given a continuance for further discovery.
WIREdata, Inc. v. Village of Sussex, 2007 Wisc. App. LEXIS 7 (Wisc. Ct. App. Jan. 3, 2007).
The state's open records laws were violated when Plaintiff's requested access to a database of records and Defendant only provided PDF copies of the requested records.
Ameriwood Industries, Inc. v. Liberman, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93380 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 27, 2006).
A non-party produced an email documents that should have been produced by Defendant and, as a result, Plaintiff's request for forensic images of Defendant's hard drives was ordered.
Kentucky Speedway, LLC v. NASCAR, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92028 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 18, 2006).
Defendant was not ordered to produce documents with metadata intact if the documents had been produced previously.
United States v. Cook, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87625 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 29, 2006).
Defendants were not granted a second delay in trial due to their inability to access electronic documents, as the same documents had been provided by Plaintiff in hard copy form.
Sample v. Bureau of Prisons, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 27242 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 3, 2006).
Plaintiff was granted his request for Defendant to produce records in electronic format based on the Freedom of Information Act.
EEOC v. Lexus Serramonte, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58915 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2006).
The plaintiff requested that the defendant produce information regarding its female employees for a two-year period in Quatro Pro readable format, however, the court found that the defendant did not have to produce this information in the specified format unless they already had the information in that format.
United States v. Magnesium Corporation of America, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53911 (D. Utah Aug. 2, 2006).
The defendant produced documents in an easily reviewable electronic format, however, they were then ordered to provide Bates stamping to the documents.
India Brewing, Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50550 (E.D. Wisc. Jul. 13, 2006.
The court denied plaintiff's request for five year's worth of electronic information was overbroad, as the plaintiff could not show any evidence that the defendant failed to produce documents in hard copy form.
Smith v. Clark, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38804 (S.D. Ga. Jun. 12, 2006).
The plaintiff's claimed that a print out of the defendant's QuickBooks program did not possess all available information and the court ordered the defendants to produce an exact duplicate of the computer hard drive that contained their QuickBooks program to identify whether overcharges had been made.
Residential Constructors, LLC v. Ace Property and Casualty Ins. Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36943 (D. Nev. Jun. 5, 2006).
The plaintiffs produced requested documents, but failed to index these documents. The court found that the plaintiff must identify the documents they had produced and inform the defendants of the boxes or groups of document numbers in which the files were located.
Global Compliance, Inc. v. American Labor Law Co., 2006 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4157 (Cal. Ct. App. May 15, 2006).
In order to provide the requesting party with access to relevant metadata, the appellate court found that, although the party had produced hard copy documents, they must also produce these documents in electronic form.
Static Control Components, Inc. v. Lexmark Int'l, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16662 (E.D. Ky. Apr. 5, 2006).
The court found that a company could not simply make a database available to be reviewed at their offices and that they must produce the database in a reasonably useful form so the requesting party could review it on their own computer systems.
Ayers v. SGS Control Services,, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17591 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 3, 2006).
The court ordered the defendants to produce responsive documents in electronic form, although they had already been produced in hard copy form, so that the plaintiff's could more efficiently calculate alleged damages.
CP Solutions PTE, Ltd. v. General Electric Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27053 (D. Conn. Feb. 6, 2006).
The defendants produced over 300,000 electronic documents in TIFF format and the court did not require them to reproduce the documents in PST format, as the defendants claimed that producing them in PST format would disallow them from removing privileged documents, while also allowing the documents to be manipulated. However, the court did order the defendants to provide the plaintiff with information, data, or software that would allow the plaintiff to match email messages with attachments at the defendant's expense.
Hagenbuch v. 3B6 Systemi Elettronici Industriali S.R.I., 2006 U.S. Dist LEXIS 10838 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 8, 2006).
Electronic documents produced in TIFF format were determined to be inadequate as the TIFF files did not contain relevant, non-privileged information such as dates the files were modified, email attachments, the recipient of the emails, and metadata
Nova Measuring Instruments Ltd. v. Nanometrics, Inc., No. C 05-0986 MMC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 3, 2006).
In this case pertaining to patent infringement, a magistrate judge ordered the manufacturer to produce electronic documents in their native file format with its original metadata and that all documents were to be identified by Bates numbers to correspond to infringement claims identified in plaintiff's Patent Local Rule 3-1(c) chart.
Gilliam v. Addicts Rehabilitation Center Fund, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3343 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2006).
The court ordered defendants to produce payroll records on CD-ROM rather than producing hard copy records in order to decrease the expense and time associated with discovery. The court also determined that a confidentiality order could be utilized to protect privacy rights associated with the personal data that would be produced and could not be redacted.
 View Additional Case Summaries Regarding Form of Production of Electronic Data
|
|
|
|
|
|
