Knotty Issues of eDiscovery
Oh, Rule 34. You are the code section that keeps giving. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i), a party “must produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request.” A Plaintiff brought[…]
Read moreMagistrate Judge Stanley Boone had to straighten out a form of production dispute in a consumer protection case over curling irons. As the parties in this case learned, sometimes the form of production needs a detangler. The Plaintiffs requested ESI to be produced in native file format or TIFF with[…]
Read more
As 2014 draws to a close, it is time to reflect on the cases from this year in eDiscovery. One of the biggest trends I took away from caselaw in 2014, is that more Judges have a greater understanding of eDiscovery, resulting in practical opinions. Here are the practice areas[…]
Read moreThere are Case Management Orders that show parties spent a lot of time considering eDiscovery issues. There are the ones that show a lack of thought. There are ones that are mixed. This one shows a lot of forethought, but I am puzzled by the form of production. Technology Assisted[…]
Read moreMagistrate Judge Paul Grewal is one of the new heroes of eDiscovery jurisprudence. In Venture Corp. Ltd. v. Barrett, the good Judge opened with the following on Rule 34: Most lawyers (and hopefully judges) would be forgiven if they could not recite on demand some of the more obscure of[…]
Read moreMagistrate Judge Paul Cherry is a great jurist whose opinions on the form of production should be taught in first year Civil Procedure classes. The Judge clearly explains the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applies the rules to the case at bar in very concise analysis. A Plaintiff in a[…]
Read moreNot all native files are in a “reasonably useable form.” To borrow from the Dark Knight, sometimes, producing native files as PDF’s with metadata is the “reasonably useable” form you deserve, but not the one you need for convenient document review. A Plaintiff sought a native file production from a[…]
Read moreMany litigation support professionals think Excel files are the bane of discovery. Attorneys with a fixation of wanting a Bates Stamp on electronically stored information demand Excel files be converted from their native application to a static image, causing one Excel file to explode into a 500 page PDF. To[…]
Read moreHere is my advice: NEVER agree to a stipulation to produce native files when “it is more practical to do so” and agree to productions in PAPER, PDF’s, or TIFFs. Melian Labs v. Triology LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124343 (N.D. Cal.Sept. 4, 2014). That is what happened in Melian Labs v. Triology[…]
Read more
A producing party claimed that it was “impossible” to produce Gmail in Native File Format because, “Gmail account user and Google does not permit its users to copy e-mails and documents in native format.” As such, the Defendant produced the gmail emails by forwarding them to the Plaintiff. Sexton v.[…]
Read more