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.
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.
Scope is the extent of discovery that the parties agree to provide in a case, determined both by FRCP 26(b)(1) and the individual case’s parameters.
Collection supports the earlier stage of preservation, as collected data is available for later stages of discovery and will not be inadvertently deleted or modified.
Because “glaring incompetence” in issuing a legal hold did not establish intentional spoliation, sanctions were proper only to cure the prejudice.