Despite being ordered to comply with FRCP 34, the plaintiffs continued to produce emails in PDF rather than native format, leading to sanctions.
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 the plaintiff’s request for re-production of ESI in native format where she gave no “specific, articulable basis” for the request.
In this fraudulent inducement claim, the magistrate considered the permissible scope of discovery for the parties’ cross-motions to compel.