Document Production

ILS Team
November 20, 2019

Claw Back of Inadvertently Produced Data Permitted Despite Lack of Rule 502(d) Order

In Bellamy v. Wal-Mart Stores, Texas, LLC, No. SA-18-CV-60-XR (W.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2019), a Texas District Judge ruled that Defendant was entitled to “claw back” certain documents it unintentionally produced. However, the Judge still considered the inadvertently produced documents in analyzing Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions and granted Plaintiff’s motion to the extent that the

ILS Team
November 13, 2019

Motion To Compel Native Production Denied Because Native Was Not Specified

In Smith v. TFI Family Services, Inc., No. 17-02235-JWB-GEB (D. Kan. Sep. 4, 2019), a Kansas Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Against Defendant to Show Good Cause Why it Should not be Held in Contempt and Motion for Sanctions for failing to produce ESI in native format with associated metadata. The denial was

ilsteam
July 12, 2019

Judge Orders Plaintiff To Produce His Telephone Records Citing Lack Of Viable Privilege Claim

In Siemers v. BNSF Railway Co., No. 8:17-cv-360 (D. Neb. Apr. 8, 2019), the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff to produce his telephone records after finding that such records were not subject to a privilege claim solely because Plaintiff’s counsel’s telephone number may appear in the records and that the privacy issues are minimal to non-existent

ilsteam
July 5, 2019

Judge Orders Plaintiff To Produce Telephone Records Citing Lack Of Viable Privilege Claim

ilsteam
January 4, 2019

Court Requires Plaintiff to Produce in Requested Native Format, Rejects PDF Production

In The McDonnel Group, LLC v. Starr Surplus Lines Ins. Co., Civil Action No. 18-1380 (E.D. La. October 3, 2018), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted Defendant’s motion for an order compelling Plaintiff to produce its responsive electronically stored information (“ESI”) in native format after Plaintiff had previously produced

ilsteam
December 10, 2018

Native Production Ordered Under FRCP 34’s “Usual Course of Business” Requirement

In the absence of a specified production format provided in the request or agreed upon by the parties, Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 requires that electronically stored information (ESI) is produced as “kept in the usual course of business…or in a reasonably usable form or forms.” A producing party ignores this requirement at its peril,

ilsteam
December 4, 2018

Party Ordered to Comply with ESI Protocol Order and Produce in TIFF Format

In the recent multi-district litigation In re: Syngenta AG Mir162 Corn Litig., MDL 2591, No. 16-2788-JWL (D. Kan. Sept. 25, 2018), the United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied the request of party Louis Dreyfus Company Grains Merchandising LLC (“LDC”) to allow it to produce substantial amounts of electronically stored information (“ESI”) in

ilsteam
September 28, 2018

Court Orders Defendant To Produce Responsive Emails In Native Format

In City of San Jose v. JUM GLOBAL, LLC., Case No. 16-cv-01462-VKD (N.D. Ca. July 11, 2018), the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted Plaintiff’s motion for an order compelling Defendant to produce its responsive electronically stored information (“ESI”) in native format after Defendant had previously produced its responsive ESI

ilsteam
September 24, 2018

Court Orders Defendant to Disclose ESI Search Methodology Prior to Discovery Production

In Baranco v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 17-cv-03580-EMC (N.D. Ca April 10, 2018), the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ordered Defendant to disclose its ESI search methodology to Plaintiff before collecting and producing discovery to allow Plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to provide input to the chosen methodology as part

ilsteam
July 6, 2018

Judge Orders Production of Cell Phone Records in Golden State Case

In Ortiz v. Amazon.com LLC, et al, No. 17-cv-03820-JSW (MEJ) (N.D. Cal. May 25, 2018), a California magistrate court ordered the plaintiff to give the defendant, Golden State, his cell phone account holder’s name and address in order for the defendant to subpoena the cell phone records. The plaintiff had failed to provide court-ordered cell