Knotty Issues of eDiscovery
Magistrate Judge William Hussmann put a new spin on form of production analysis in Crissen v. Gupta: What form was discovery in and when was it in that form? The Plaintiff brought a motion for the production of Word documents in native file format. The Producing Party had produced the[…]
Read moreThere is a strong trend in case law for 2013: Judges understand the form of production. Magistrate Judge Donna Martinez brought home this point in Saliga v. Chemtura Corp. The Plaintiff requested ESI in native file format. The Defendant objected. However, the objection was not based on undue burden or proportionality,[…]
Read moreA Plaintiff brought a motion for terminating sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b), based on the Defendant’s untimely production of ESI as non-searchable TIFFs without metadata. The Court denied the default sanction, but instead ordered the production in searchable format with metadata. Kwan Software Eng’g, Inc. v. Foray[…]
Read more
A Court recently held that it was not “impossible” to produce Gmail in native file format. The more accurate holding might have been “in a reasonably useable form.” Keaton v. Hannum, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60519, at *4-5 (S.D. Ind. Apr. 29, 2013). Here is the relevant section from the case: Zook[…]
Read moreMy grandfather grew up a plain spoken farmer in Iowa. He had a bow tie wearing attorney uncle who also knew how to sum up an issue. It is very nice to see a clearly stated order on the form of production from the Northern District of Iowa, Eastern Division[…]
Read moreI had the good fortune to organize a seminar on responding to electronic discovery requests for the Santa Clara County Bar Association’s Civil Practice Committee on February 27, 2013. However, this seminar was different from other eDiscovery CLE’s, because the attendees spent a full hour conducting searches for responsive ESI[…]
Read moreThis case is my eDiscovery nightmare. Worse than a clown with snakes. Let’s review what happened. The case involved numerous allegations of discovery wrongdoing against the Plaintiff. The Defendants brought a motion for “discovery abuses intended to harass defendants, cause unnecessary delay, and needlessly increase the cost of litigation.” The[…]
Read moreNothing says Merry Christmas like winning eDiscovery costs. One party was able to get over half the gifts on their Christmas List from the Court as taxable costs. The Defendants submitted eDiscovery costs over $40,000, which was nearly two-thirds of the Defendant’s bill of costs. A service provider made up[…]
Read moreForm of Production in eDiscovery A discussion of the form of production under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34, plus one recent case. Rationally Organized Productions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34(b)(2)(E) Production requirements for documents and electronically stored information under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34(b)(2)(E)[…]
Read moreA Producing Party (the Defendant) argued against searching for responsive electronically stored information, claiming “that the mere fact an employee might have discoverable information or relevant knowledge does not necessarily mean she possesses relevant documents.” McNearney v. Wash. Dep’t of Corr., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108386, 14-16 (W.D. Wash. Aug.[…]
Read more