The court compelled production of files in native format, citing Rule 34, the parties’ agreement, and the potential relevance of native-format files.
Where the plaintiff failed to comply with FRCP 34, producing PDFs that lacked critical metadata, the court ordered production of native-format ESI.
The court denied a request to produce ESI in native format rather than TIFF files, citing the inability to Bates number a native production.
Citing FRCP 34 regarding the form of production, the court ordered a party to re-produce emails in native format rather than as searchable PDFs.
The court denied sanctions for spoliation, finding that the disputed ESI had been automatically overwritten before the duty to preserve attached.
The court denied sanctions where the plaintiff “accidentally” deleted emails, rejecting as “speculative” the claim that she had a duty to preserve.
In this class action, the court denied sanctions after the plaintiffs’ demands for a broad scope of discovery yielded a predictably huge production.
In this pharmaceutical case, the court ordered the parties to randomly sample the ESI null set for responsiveness after keyword searching.
The court denied the plaintiff’s request for re-production of ESI in native format where she gave no “specific, articulable basis” for the request.