-
NY State Court Orders Defense Production in TIFF Format with Metadata
It has become clear that when plaintiffs ask for electronic data and ESI productions in TIFF format with metadata from the initial requests, courts will frequently enforce this formatting if disputes later arise. For a recent case, see the New York state court opinion dated January 24, 2014 Brandofino Commications,
-
Late Discovery Production: Justified or Harmless Under Rule 37(e)?
Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 37(e) provides that “if a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was
-
Does Rule 37(b) Require Sanctions for the Failure to Produce Metadata?
In Ackerman v. PNC Bank, et al., Civil No. 12-CV-42(SRN/JSM)(D. Minn. January 23, 2014), the defendant produced ESI in response to plaintiff eDiscovery requests and a court order relating to a litigation hold. After the defense production was tendered (without metadata), Plaintiff sought sanctions alleging: 1. Defendant intentionally withheld evidence
-
Plaintiffs Partially Recover Electronic Production Expenses
In Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. v. International Securities Exchange, LLC, No. 07 CV 623 (ND Illinois, January 14, 2014), plaintiff CBOE was awarded final judgment and subsequently asked Judge Lefkow for costs under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 54(d) and 28 U.S.C. §1920. Defendant ISE objected to the requested amount,
-
When Electronic Documents are Fewer than Expected, Defendants must Explain Why or Produce More
In American Home Assurance et al. v. Greater Omaha Packing Company Inc., No. 8:11CV270 (Dist. Court, D. Nebraska Sept. 11, 2013), plaintiffs Cargill and American Home Assurance alleged defendant GOPAC supplied E. coli-tainted beef that sickened dozens of people in 2007. Mired in discovery for more than a year, plaintiff
-
Plaintiffs Should Specify Exact Formats for Electronic Document Production
In Rick James, et al. v. UMG Recordings, Inc., No. 11-cv-01613-SI (MEJ) (Dist. Court, N.D. California Nov. 8, 2013), plaintiff, the estate of the late singer Rick James, alleges defendant UMG Recordings, Inc. underpays licensing royalties for digital downloads of recordings. The plaintiff eDiscovery requests sought Excel-versions of electronic documents
-
Inadvertently Produced Email Threads Lead to Privlege Dispute
Inadvertent discovery disclosure is governed by Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 26. It is not entirely uncommon for a paralegal, support staff or even attorneys to mistakenly produce documents or electronic data that is protected by attorney-client privilege. However, when it does happen, it can easily lead to ongoing disputes over the production. One
-
PDF Files Without Metadata: Acceptable Defense Production?
If a defense production is tendered as electronic data in PDF form, non-searchable and without metadata, does it meet the discovery requirements of Fed.R.Civ. Pro. 34? Or do plaintiffs have grounds to object and request an order of court compelling the production in native file format? This question is but
-
Plaintiff Attorney Fees Imposed for Defense Production’s “Severe Shortcomings”
As electronically stored information (ESI) is now a standard part of the discovery process in most civil litigation, it is inexcusable to not issue proper ESI litigation holds and deliver the electronic data in a timely manner. For a case demonstrating “severe shortcomings” for defendant’s ESI production, read the case
-
Court Orders Defense Production in Searchable Electronic Format with Metadata
In Kwan Software Engineering, Inc. v. Foray Technologies, LLC, No. C 12-03762 (N.D.Cal. October 1, 2013), plaintiff electronic discovery requests were sent and defendant responded by producing 28,786 documents on the discovery due date of August 20. After the deadline, defendants then produced 100,692 documents three weeks later, then 99,778