The court granted a motion to compel, finding that disorganized ESI did not satisfy FRCP 34; it ordered amendment of all non-conforming productions.
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.
In this class action, the court denied sanctions after the plaintiffs’ demands for a broad scope of discovery yielded a predictably huge production.
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.
Document review, the most expensive stage of ediscovery, uses teams of lawyers to determine what ESI is relevant, responsive, or privileged.
In this extensive litigation, the court held that production of 360,000 emails, while costly, was within the scope of discovery and proportional.