Zapproved
  • ZDiscovery
    • ZDiscovery Platform
    • – Hold Module
    • – Review Module
    • Pricing
    • Security
    • Request a Demo
  • Solutions
    • Legal Holds
    • In-Place Preservations
    • Data Processing
    • Culling and Review
    • Early Case Assessment
    • Internal Investigations
    • Information Requests
  • Resources
    • Resources
    • Blog
    • Events
    • Webinars
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Partners
    • Recognition
    • News Releases
    • Careers
    • Community Engagement
    • Contact Us
  • Login
  • See a Demo
Select Page

Neither party emerges as clear winner where both disregarded the rules of discovery

by Zapproved | Nov 5, 2018 | Case Law

Baker v. Santa Clara Univ.

In this employment discrimination case, the court admonished both litigants for violating the rules of discovery. Ultimately, the court denied the plaintiff’s request for native format re-production because she offered no “compelling reason” to justify it.

Late in the fact discovery period, the plaintiff, Lavonne Baker, served 54 requests for production on Santa Clara University (SCU). The last request addressed the previous 53, demanding that SCU “produce all documents in native format.” The request specifically asked for all metadata and electronically stored information (ESI).

SCU promptly produced over 2,500 pages of documents, but it did so in PDF format without any accompanying metadata. SCU did not claim that these documents were maintained as PDF files in the ordinary course of its business.

Predictably, Baker moved to compel re-production of all discoverable documents in native format with metadata intact. Her primary argument: having native format documents would make it easier to determine whether SCU withheld responsive ESI.

SCU responded that it had “attempted to engage” Baker’s counsel in discovery discussions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). Those attempts evidently failed, as Baker’s counsel “did not meaningfully engage in the required discussion.” SCU argued that at this stage, re-producing ESI in native format would be “time consuming, burdensome, and expensive.”

The court noted dryly that “neither party has complied with the rules and guidelines” governing discovery. SCU did object to Baker’s request for native format production as required by Rule 34(b)(2), but it failed to state the form it intended to use. Nor did it organize or label its production as required by Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i).

Baker fared worse. The court observed that she “appear[ed] to have utterly failed to comply” with Rule 26(f). Baker’s refusal “to meaningfully engage in any discussions” about the search methodology undercut her argument for re-production.

Now, the parties were in a dispute that they could have “avoided had they both complied with their respective and mutual discovery obligations.”

The court turned to the “dual requirements of relevance and proportionality” in Rule 26(b)(1). It concluded that Baker offered no “specific, articulable basis” to conclude that SCU had withheld discoverable documents. Therefore, at this time, she did “not have a compelling reason” to demand re-production in native format.

Simultaneously, SCU’s production was “not particularly voluminous,” and its objections about re-production were conclusory.

Therefore, the court denied Baker’s motion for full re-production in native format. However, that denial was without prejudice. The court elaborated that Baker could request re-production of specific documents if she could explain why native format was necessary.

Shortly afterward, the parties reached a settlement agreement.

Read Case Law

Takeaways on Producing Discovery

As we all know, two wrongs don’t make a right. Here, SCU took a gamble by converting its documents to PDFs and omitting all metadata. Fortunately for SCU, Baker’s poor discovery practices and eleventh-hour timing offset that wrong. Don’t run the risk. If your opponent requests a reasonable volume of native-format documents with metadata, why engage in time-consuming and costly document conversions? A savvier litigant might point out that this extra step could demonstrate a guilty conscience.

Questions about Preserving Ediscovery in the Right Format? We’re here to help you master preservation with tools for all your ediscovery needs.

Contact Us

discoverydocument conversionediscoveryediscovery dataESIFRCPmetadatanative formatPDFproductionRule 26(f)Rule 34technology

Related Content

No reasonable anticipation of litigation given longstanding relationship and lack of communication about incident

No reasonable anticipation of litigation given longstanding relationship and lack of communication about incident

by Caitlin Lilly | Oct 17, 2019 | Case Law

In this breach of contract case, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions, finding that the defendants were under no duty to preserve evidence at the time of its loss.

Stormy seas, waves, clouds, wind as seen through a cruise ship porthole.

Preserved 91-minute video sufficient to capture ‘horrific storm’

by Zapproved | Oct 3, 2019 | Case Law

In this claim for injuries sustained during a boat cruise, the court began its opinion by noting that “a picture is worth a thousand words.” Given that, “surely a video must be worth significantly more” — and video evidence from 200 surveillance cameras worth yet more than that.

Silhouetted image of three defendants who deleted evidence before and after legal hold, then misrepresented its availability, resulting in spoliation sanctions.

Defendants deleted evidence before and after legal hold, then misrepresented its availability

by Zapproved | Sep 23, 2019 | Case Law

In this employment case, the magistrate imposed monetary sanctions and recommended an adverse inference jury instruction for the defendants’ spoliation of electronically stored information (ESI). Although the defendants were on notice of the plaintiff’s claims and had a clear obligation to preserve relevant information, they intentionally deleted her email and work data...

Zapproved logo

Founded in 2008, Zapproved builds easy-to-use litigation response software designed to help corporate legal teams drive down costs, reduce risk, and build a better process. With our unwavering commitment to keeping our 350+ corporate customers ridiculously successful, we are proud to have earned a 99% retention rate.

  • Products
  • ZDiscovery
  • Legal Hold Pro
  • Digital Discovery Pro
  • Security
  • Company
  • COVID-19
  • About Us
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Ediscovery Resources
  • Blog
  • Connect
  • Contact Us
  • Login
  • See a Demo
  • PREX
  • Webinars

    • Facebook

    • Twitter

    • LinkedIn
© 2021 Zapproved LLC. All rights reserved.
|
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy