View by Topic
Form of Production > Generally (Form of Production)
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Wockhardt Ltd., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61811 (S.D. Ind. June 22, 2010).
After producing documents as they were kept in the usual course of business, plaintiff was not required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 to also organize and label documents to correspond to the categories in defendant's request for production. However, given plaintiff's "demonstrated ample resources," the court ordered plaintiff to "in good faith generally match up its documents with [defendant's] requests by letter, chart, or some form of index."
After producing documents as they were kept in the usual course of business, plaintiff was not required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 to also organize and label documents to correspond to the categories in defendant's request for production. However, given plaintiff's "demonstrated ample resources," the court ordered plaintiff to "in good faith generally match up its documents with [defendant's] requests by letter, chart, or some form of index."
Sabertooth, LLC v. Simons (In re Venom, Inc.), 2010 Bankr. LEXIS 723 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Mar. 9, 2010).
Plaintiffs' failure to produce electronic records was not excused through late production of requested data in hard copy form. The court ordered plaintiffs to produce, at defendant's option, CD's with searchable electronic data or the computer on which the data was stored.
Plaintiffs' failure to produce electronic records was not excused through late production of requested data in hard copy form. The court ordered plaintiffs to produce, at defendant's option, CD's with searchable electronic data or the computer on which the data was stored.
Secure Energy, Inc. v. Coal Synthetics, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13532 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 17, 2010).
Production of defendant's electronic engineering drawings in native format with metadata was not ordered. Plaintiffs' motion for an order compelling production was filed late, native format production had not been sought in plaintiffs' original document request, and defendants would be prejudiced if required after seeking summary judgment to retain an expert to review metadata in the drawings before production in native format to plaintiffs.
Production of defendant's electronic engineering drawings in native format with metadata was not ordered. Plaintiffs' motion for an order compelling production was filed late, native format production had not been sought in plaintiffs' original document request, and defendants would be prejudiced if required after seeking summary judgment to retain an expert to review metadata in the drawings before production in native format to plaintiffs.
United States v. Zerjav, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60113 (E.D. Mo. July 14, 2009).
In an action by the United States to enjoin allegedly fraudulent tax planning advice and return preparation methods, the court held that the parties could agree to exchange metadata, but the court had "no intention of requiring any party, in any case, to produce metadata without showing that other means of obtaining the discoverable material failed."
In an action by the United States to enjoin allegedly fraudulent tax planning advice and return preparation methods, the court held that the parties could agree to exchange metadata, but the court had "no intention of requiring any party, in any case, to produce metadata without showing that other means of obtaining the discoverable material failed."
Valeo Electrical Systems, Inc. v. Cleveland Die & Mfg. Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51421 (E.D. Mich. June 17, 2009).
Plaintiff had no obligation to organize data it produced according to the 28 categories of a document request because the data had been produced in the form in which it was ordinarily kept as permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(i).
Plaintiff had no obligation to organize data it produced according to the 28 categories of a document request because the data had been produced in the form in which it was ordinarily kept as permitted by Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(i).
Ford Motor Co. v. Edgewood Properties, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42001 (D.N.J. May 18, 2009).
Defendant waived its request for production in native format with metadata by failing to object within a reasonable time to plaintiff’s rolling production in TIFF format.
Defendant waived its request for production in native format with metadata by failing to object within a reasonable time to plaintiff’s rolling production in TIFF format.
Gregg v. Local 305 IBEW, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40761 (N.D. Ind. May 13, 2009).
Although plaintiff offered no evidence of spoliation or bad faith by defendant, the court ordered defendant to produce a second set of its documents with Bates-stamped numbers so that plaintiff could compare documents produced by defendant with documents filed by defendant under seal with the court.
Although plaintiff offered no evidence of spoliation or bad faith by defendant, the court ordered defendant to produce a second set of its documents with Bates-stamped numbers so that plaintiff could compare documents produced by defendant with documents filed by defendant under seal with the court.
In the Matter of the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Salem Tamer and Winston Conway Link, 2009 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 872 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. Apr. 20, 2009).
The court allowed production in electronic rather than paper form if the production was accompanied by an index because a statute that did not authorize production of documents in electronic form also did not prohibit production in electronic form.
The court allowed production in electronic rather than paper form if the production was accompanied by an index because a statute that did not authorize production of documents in electronic form also did not prohibit production in electronic form.
In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33730 (D. Kan. Apr. 3, 2009).
Burdensomeness of document requests and interrogatories seeking 49 years of information from defendants did not outweigh usefulness of the information for plaintiffs. However, the court ordered defendants to produce pre-2001 documents only in paper form for inspection by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs could then seek specific pre-2001 documents in their electronic form.
Burdensomeness of document requests and interrogatories seeking 49 years of information from defendants did not outweigh usefulness of the information for plaintiffs. However, the court ordered defendants to produce pre-2001 documents only in paper form for inspection by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs could then seek specific pre-2001 documents in their electronic form.
D.G. v. Henry, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13739 (N.D. Okla. Feb. 20, 2009).
A request for production of documents pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 could not be used to require plaintiffs to tell defendant which of defendant’s documents would be relied on by plaintiffs. However, to avoid unfairness and wastefulness, the court ordered plaintiffs to provide defendant with a preliminary expert report identifying documents to be relied on by plaintiffs.
A request for production of documents pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 could not be used to require plaintiffs to tell defendant which of defendant’s documents would be relied on by plaintiffs. However, to avoid unfairness and wastefulness, the court ordered plaintiffs to provide defendant with a preliminary expert report identifying documents to be relied on by plaintiffs.
SEC v. Collins & Aikman Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3367 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2009).
The SEC was ordered to supplement its production of 1.7 million documents from 36 databases with production or identification of documents organized according to defendant’s request for production of documents supporting allegations of the SEC’s complaint. A government agency that initiated litigation had to follow the same discovery rules that governed private parties, and it was “patently inequitable to require a party to search ten million pages to find documents already identified by its adversary as supporting the allegations of a complaint.”
The SEC was ordered to supplement its production of 1.7 million documents from 36 databases with production or identification of documents organized according to defendant’s request for production of documents supporting allegations of the SEC’s complaint. A government agency that initiated litigation had to follow the same discovery rules that governed private parties, and it was “patently inequitable to require a party to search ten million pages to find documents already identified by its adversary as supporting the allegations of a complaint.”
MSC.Software Corp. v. Altair Engineering, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105570 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 22, 2008).
A response to a request for production of documents that responsive documents were contained in tens of thousands of web-based collaboration system pages produced in searchable format on an external hard drive or USB flash memory was sufficient under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(ii). Plaintiff had not specified a form of production, and the production was an efficient way to deliver a mass amount of electronic information.
A response to a request for production of documents that responsive documents were contained in tens of thousands of web-based collaboration system pages produced in searchable format on an external hard drive or USB flash memory was sufficient under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(ii). Plaintiff had not specified a form of production, and the production was an efficient way to deliver a mass amount of electronic information.
El-Amin v. George Washington University, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85009 (D.D.C. Oct. 22, 2008).
An electronic discovery work plan was drafted by the court after review of the Sedona Conference publication “Best Practices for the Selection of Electronic Discovery Vendors: Navigating the Vendor Proposal Process.” The primary goal of the plan, according to the court, was “to create a system whereby all existing documents are hyper-linked to fields in a database that will permit the instantaneous retrieval from within the database of the information offered by plaintiffs in support of any factual proposition.”
An electronic discovery work plan was drafted by the court after review of the Sedona Conference publication “Best Practices for the Selection of Electronic Discovery Vendors: Navigating the Vendor Proposal Process.” The primary goal of the plan, according to the court, was “to create a system whereby all existing documents are hyper-linked to fields in a database that will permit the instantaneous retrieval from within the database of the information offered by plaintiffs in support of any factual proposition.”
Suarez Corporation Industries v. Earthwise Technologies, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66560 (W.D. Wash. July 17, 2008).
While the party requesting production of documents could not, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E), instruct the producing party on how to organize the production, the producing party at least had to communicate how its documents were determined to be responsive and how the documents were kept in the ordinary course of business.
While the party requesting production of documents could not, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E), instruct the producing party on how to organize the production, the producing party at least had to communicate how its documents were determined to be responsive and how the documents were kept in the ordinary course of business.
Perfect Barrier LLC v. Woodsmart Solutions Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71863 (N.D. Ind. May 27, 2008).
A defendant that produced email in native format on a computer accessible disk was not required to produce the email again in the form of “Static Images” with a number identifier. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 required production of the email only in the format in which it was kept, absent a request for its production in some other form.
A defendant that produced email in native format on a computer accessible disk was not required to produce the email again in the form of “Static Images” with a number identifier. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 required production of the email only in the format in which it was kept, absent a request for its production in some other form.
L.H. v. Schwarzenegger, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86829 (E.D. Cal. May 14, 2008).
State officials in California were sanctioned for late production of documents and inadequate privilege logs. Also, production of documents in a .pdf format failed to meet the requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b) to produce documents in a "reasonably usable form" that would allow searching and sorting of the documents.
State officials in California were sanctioned for late production of documents and inadequate privilege logs. Also, production of documents in a .pdf format failed to meet the requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b) to produce documents in a "reasonably usable form" that would allow searching and sorting of the documents.
McCord v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36006 (E.D. La. May 2, 2008).
Plaintiff’s request for production of email in native format rather than hard copy could not be accommodated, according to the court, because the request was made within days of the discovery deadline set by the court.
Plaintiff’s request for production of email in native format rather than hard copy could not be accommodated, according to the court, because the request was made within days of the discovery deadline set by the court.
Autotech Technologies Limited Partnership v. AutomationDirect.com, Inc.,, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27962 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 2, 2008).
A party that did not specify production of documents in electronic form with metadata intact was not entitled under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E) to an electronic copy of a document already produced in .pdf format and in paper format and containing a nine-page written history of changes that had been made to the document.
A party that did not specify production of documents in electronic form with metadata intact was not entitled under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E) to an electronic copy of a document already produced in .pdf format and in paper format and containing a nine-page written history of changes that had been made to the document.
D'Onofrio v. Sfx Sports Group, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4252 (D.D.C. Jan. 23, 2008).
A request for production of documents with language traditionally used to refer to paper files could not be read to require production of electronic files in their original electronic form with metadata because the request did not specify the form of production of electronic data as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b).
A request for production of documents with language traditionally used to refer to paper files could not be read to require production of electronic files in their original electronic form with metadata because the request did not specify the form of production of electronic data as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b).
ICE Corp. v. Hamilton Sundstrand Corp., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88358 (D. Kan. Nov. 30, 2007).
Plaintiff's motion for an order compelling production of electronic versions of previously produced documents was denied because plaintiff's requests for production did not specify electronic form.
Plaintiff's motion for an order compelling production of electronic versions of previously produced documents was denied because plaintiff's requests for production did not specify electronic form.
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 electronically stored information with metadata or in native format because Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 did not explicitly require production of metadata and the burden of such production outweighed its value.
Defendant was not required to produce electronically stored information with metadata or in native format because Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 did not explicitly require production of metadata and the burden of such production outweighed its value.
John B. v. Goetz, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75457 (M.D. Tenn. Oct. 10, 2007), modified, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8821 (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 28, 2010).
State agencies that searched for only two of the fifty terms agreed upon by computer forensics experts and provided only hard copies of electronically stored information were ordered to complete a full search of computers and to produce responsive documents in electronic form with metadata intact. The court concluded it would appoint a discovery monitor at the expense of the state agencies whose conduct caused the discovery dispute.
State agencies that searched for only two of the fifty terms agreed upon by computer forensics experts and provided only hard copies of electronically stored information were ordered to complete a full search of computers and to produce responsive documents in electronic form with metadata intact. The court concluded it would appoint a discovery monitor at the expense of the state agencies whose conduct caused the discovery dispute.
Member Services v. Security Mutual Life Ins., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74047 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 3, 2007).
Defendants were ordered to produce source code in electronic form in addition to the hard copy form already produced. Plaintiffs had shown relevance of the source code and were not required to make a prima facie showing of ultimately prevailing on their claims before being entitled to discovery.
Defendants were ordered to produce source code in electronic form in addition to the hard copy form already produced. Plaintiffs had shown relevance of the source code and were not required to make a prima facie showing of ultimately prevailing on their claims before being entitled to discovery.
Schmidt v. Levi Strauss & Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69791 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2007).
Plaintiffs' request for an order directing defendant to re-produce its entire paper document production in native electronic format was denied. Plaintiffs had not originally specified production in electronic format pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b), the request for the order came six months after the close of discovery, and plaintiffs could seek production in electronic format of particular documents that were not usable or readable in hard copy format.
Plaintiffs' request for an order directing defendant to re-produce its entire paper document production in native electronic format was denied. Plaintiffs had not originally specified production in electronic format pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b), the request for the order came six months after the close of discovery, and plaintiffs could seek production in electronic format of particular documents that were not usable or readable in hard copy format.
Authsec, Inc. v. Roberts, 2007 Md. Cir. Ct. LEXIS 8 (Md. Cir. Ct. Jul. 17, 2007).
In a case assigned to Maryland’s Business and Technology Case Management Program, the court appointed a computer forensics and data management expert to supervise mirror imaging and searches of computer drives and other storage devices of the parties.
In a case assigned to Maryland’s Business and Technology Case Management Program, the court appointed a computer forensics and data management expert to supervise mirror imaging and searches of computer drives and other storage devices of the parties.
Lohmann & Rauscher, Inc. v. YKK (U.S.A.), Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15820 (D. Kan. Mar. 2, 2007).
An email message was not an appropriate supplemental response to a request for production. An order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) to supplement a response inferred a written response as required by Rule 34(b), with a signature by counsel.
An email message was not an appropriate supplemental response to a request for production. An order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) to supplement a response inferred a written response as required by Rule 34(b), with a signature by counsel.
Whitney v. Wurtz, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14499 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2007).
Production on a consolidated disk of responses to separate requests for production directed to each of four plaintiffs was considered unacceptable.
Production on a consolidated disk of responses to separate requests for production directed to each of four plaintiffs was considered unacceptable.
Cenveo Corp. v. Slater, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8281 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 31, 2007).
Despite defendants' desire to control imaging and examination of its own computer hard drives, plaintiff was granted permission to appoint an expert to image and examine the hard drives because the litigation concerned alleged improper use by defendants of plaintiff's confidential information and computers. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2), the court weighed defendants' burden against plaintiff's interest in access to the information on the hard drives.
Despite defendants' desire to control imaging and examination of its own computer hard drives, plaintiff was granted permission to appoint an expert to image and examine the hard drives because the litigation concerned alleged improper use by defendants of plaintiff's confidential information and computers. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2), the court weighed defendants' burden against plaintiff's interest in access to the information on the hard drives.
DE Technologies, Inc. v. Dell, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2769 (W.D. Va. Jan. 12, 2007).
A magistrate's discovery sanction providing that defendant could not use 57 pages of documents at trial was modified to allow use at trial. Production of the documents complied with amended Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b) when produced in electronic format even though they were not produced with a live electronic directory and in the identical format in which they were kept in the ordinary course of business.
A magistrate's discovery sanction providing that defendant could not use 57 pages of documents at trial was modified to allow use at trial. Production of the documents complied with amended Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b) when produced in electronic format even though they were not produced with a live electronic directory and in the identical format in which they were kept in the ordinary course of business.
WIREdata, Inc. v. Village of Sussex, 2007 Wisc. App. LEXIS 7 (Wisc. Ct. App. Jan. 3, 2007).
Municipalities violated Wisconsin's open records law by providing only .pdf copies of property assessment records in response to requests for access to a database of such records.
Municipalities violated Wisconsin's open records law by providing only .pdf copies of property assessment records in response to requests for access to a database of such records.
Graham v. Cingular Wireless LLC, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 595 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 3, 2007).
Plaintiff was entitled to a continuance in summary judgment proceedings for further discovery made necessary by defendant's production of email without indicated attachments or with redactions but no corresponding privilege log.
Plaintiff was entitled to a continuance in summary judgment proceedings for further discovery made necessary by defendant's production of email without indicated attachments or with redactions but no corresponding privilege log.
Kentucky Speedway, LLC v. NASCAR, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92028 (E.D. Ky. Dec. 18, 2006).
Citing an emerging presumption against production of metadata and recent federal rule amendments, the court declined to order defendant to provide metadata for electronic documents that already had been produced.
Citing an emerging presumption against production of metadata and recent federal rule amendments, the court declined to order defendant to provide metadata for electronic documents that already had been produced.
United States v. Cook,, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87625 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 29, 2006).
Delayed access by criminal tax defendants to computerized documents did not justify a second delay in their trial because they could review hard copies of the documents.
Delayed access by criminal tax defendants to computerized documents did not justify a second delay in their trial because they could review hard copies of the documents.
Macnamara v. City of New York, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82926 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 13, 2006).
Indications that probable cause narratives from police worksheets differed from entries in a database produced to plaintiffs led the court to order production of the worksheets.
Indications that probable cause narratives from police worksheets differed from entries in a database produced to plaintiffs led the court to order production of the worksheets.
Sample v. Bureau of Prisons, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 27242 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 3, 2006).
The Bureau of Prisons was required under the Freedom of Information Act to produce records in their electronic format to an inmate.
The Bureau of Prisons was required under the Freedom of Information Act to produce records in their electronic format to an inmate.
United States v. Cook, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62391 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 31, 2006).
A second postponement of a tax enforcement trial was not necessitated by the government's disclosure that it had as many as 40 additional hard drives and 400 boxes of related documents because defendants would not be prejudiced by having to search through some documents in hard-copy form rather than on an electronic discovery database being compiled.
A second postponement of a tax enforcement trial was not necessitated by the government's disclosure that it had as many as 40 additional hard drives and 400 boxes of related documents because defendants would not be prejudiced by having to search through some documents in hard-copy form rather than on an electronic discovery database being compiled.
United States v. Magnesium Corporation of America, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53911 (D. Utah Aug. 2, 2006).
Following its production of documents in a word-searchable electronic format, defendant was ordered to identify sources and custodians of the documents by adding Bates numbers.
Following its production of documents in a word-searchable electronic format, defendant was ordered to identify sources and custodians of the documents by adding Bates numbers.
India Brewing, Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50550 (E.D. Wisc. Jul. 13, 2006.
A request for five year's worth of information on all world-wide electronic storage systems of defendant was overbroad. Given the lack of any evidence that defendant failed to produce in hard copy form what it was required to produce, the court denied plaintiff's motion to compel defendant to produce stored electronic information and information regarding how the information was stored.
A request for five year's worth of information on all world-wide electronic storage systems of defendant was overbroad. Given the lack of any evidence that defendant failed to produce in hard copy form what it was required to produce, the court denied plaintiff's motion to compel defendant to produce stored electronic information and information regarding how the information was stored.
