TIFF – Page 2 – Bow Tie Law

Adventures in Statutory Construction of FRCP Rule 34(b)(2)(E)

November 20, 2011 Josh Gilliland Document Review, e-Discovery, Form of Production, TIFF

In a multi-party complex case, the parties agreed to the production of electronically stored information as TIFFs or JPEGs with fields of information that did not reflect the metadata of the native files. The original production fields included: beginning bates number, ending bates number, page count, CD volume name, producing[…]

Bates Numbering ESI & Other Dates with a Recycle Bin

March 28, 2011 Josh Gilliland e-Discovery, Electronically Stored Information, ESI, Form of Production, Meet & Confer, Metadata, Native File, Reasonably Useable Form, Request for Production, TIFF

There are battles that do not make sense. This is one of those cases. In a civil dispute over fraudulent investments, the Plaintiff brought a motion to compel the Defendant to “Bates Label” electronically stored information in native file format, because the local Discovery Practices Handbook required Bates numbering of[…]

Cooking with Undue Burden & Metadata

November 23, 2010 Josh Gilliland e-Discovery, Electronically Stored Information, Email, ESI, Metadata, TIFF, Undue Burden

In a business dispute, the Plaintiffs sought the production of email messages in native file format with metadata. The successor counsel to the Defendant claimed producing as TIFF’s would be sufficient, because the ESI was “no longer available in native format.” Moreover, the Defendant claimed producing metadata was “unnecessary and[…]

Don’t Argue Imaginary ESI Production Problems

August 19, 2009 Josh Gilliland Document Review, e-Discovery, Electronically Stored Information, ESI, ethics, Form of Production, Metadata, Motion to Compel, Native File, OCR, TIFF

In re NetBank, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69031 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 7, 2009) has form of production arguments that illustrate the need to understand the processing abilities of electronically stored information applications and review in litigation support software. The Request for Production In this class certification case, the Plaintiff[…]

Follow the Court Order: If You are Ordered to Produce Searchable PDF’s, Don’t Produce TIFFs without Searchable Text

June 12, 2009 Josh Gilliland Deposition, Discovery, e-Discovery, Electronically Stored Information, ESI, Form of Production, Motion to Compel, Request for Production, TIFF

Gamesmanship is the harbinger of bad lawyer reputations. Not obeying Court orders can be the death warrant on how the judge will view you every time you appear in her courtroom. One can imagine how things will go for a party when this is the opening line of an opinion:[…]

Procrastination and Objecting to the Form of Production Don’t Mix

May 22, 2009 Josh Gilliland Discovery, e-Discovery, Electronically Stored Information, ESI, Form of Production, Metadata, Motion to Compel, Request for Production, TIFF

It is beyond cavil that this entire problem could have been avoided had there been an explicit agreement between the parties as to production, but as that ship has sailed, it is without question unduly burdensome to a party months after production to require that party to reconstitute their entire[…]

Name that Form of Production: Converting ESI to TIFF without Metadata is Not a Reasonably Useable Form

May 7, 2009 Josh Gilliland Discovery, Document Review, e-Discovery, Electronically Stored Information, Email, ESI, ethics, Form of Production, Metadata, Native File, TIFF

Bray & Gillespie Mgmt. LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21250 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 4, 2009) is a lengthy opinion covering Rule 34 requests, form of production issues concerning metadata, reasonably useable form of production, ethical responsibilities for candor to the Court and Opposing Parties and sanctions. […]

Court Orders OCR of Scanned Paper Documents, or Don’t Go to Court Claiming OCR will Cost $200,000

February 24, 2009 Josh Gilliland Discovery, Document Review, Form of Production, OCR, Request for Production, TIFF

“OCR, while perhaps not absolutely necessary to litigation, is a tool that greatly decreases the time and effort counsel must invest in searching and examining documents. Presumably, each party would perform the OCR process in a cost-effective manner to minimize their costs. Requiring the parties to incur this cost, when[…]