native format
Production of emails in PDF format violates Rule 34 and the court’s order
Despite being ordered to comply with FRCP 34, the plaintiffs continued to produce emails in PDF rather than native format, leading to sanctions.
Native-format production appropriate under Rule 34 and parties’ agreement
The court compelled production of files in native format, citing Rule 34, the parties’ agreement, and the potential relevance of native-format files.
Produced PDF files ‘are merely pictures’ that lack critical metadata
Where the plaintiff failed to comply with FRCP 34, producing PDFs that lacked critical metadata, the court ordered production of native-format ESI.
Party failed to follow court’s ESI Protocol Order in requesting an exception
The court denied a request to produce ESI in native format rather than TIFF files, citing the inability to Bates number a native production.
PDF production ‘not unreasonable,’ but also not ‘unduly burdensome’ to re-produce
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.
Neither party emerges as clear winner where both disregarded the rules of discovery
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.
Court Weighs Questions On Scope Of Discovery
In this fraudulent inducement claim, the magistrate considered the permissible scope of discovery for the parties’ cross-motions to compel.