• Home
  • About
  • Terms
  • RSS

Failing to follow Rule 34′s procedures can result in having to produce ESI a second time in a different format

December 4th, 2009 | By Steve Puiszis

Covad Communications Co. v. Revonet, Inc., 260 F.R.D. 5 (D.D.C. 2009); Cenveo Corp. v. Southern Graphic Systems, 2009 WL 404 2898 (D. Minn. Nov. 18, 2009)

Because the production of electronically stored information (ESI) can occur in various formats, Rule 34 sets up a process through which the parties are supposed to resolve their disputes over the format of production. Rule 34(b)(1)(C) permits the requesting party to specify the format in which to produce the requested ESI. The producing party can either agree to produce the ESI in the requested form or can object to the proposed format. Rule 34(b)(2)(D) specifies that when either the requesting party fails to specify a production format in its request for documents or when the producing party objects to a specified format, the producing party is obligated to identify the format in which it proposes to produce the requested ESI. If the parties are unable to agree on a format, the Rule contemplates that a court will then resolve the issue, but is not bound by either party’s proposed production formats.

clinton

Rule 34 contemplates that the parties will resolve their disputes over the format of production before any production occurs. Indeed, the Advisory Committee Note to Rule 34 explains: “Stating the intended form before production occurs may permit the parties to identify and seek to resolve disputes before the expense and work of the production occurs.”

When a party unilaterally produces ESI in a format of its choice without providing the prior notice contemplated by Rule 34(b)(2)(D), the Advisory Committee Note to the Rule further explains that the producing party runs the risk that a court may conclude the ESI was produced in a format that was not reasonably usable and may order that it be reproduced in a different form. That very nightmare occurred in both of today’s featured decisions and the Covad Communications decision provides a textbook example of the type of problem that can occur when a party has to produce its ESI a second time in a different format.

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment »

OCR cost shifting rejected

March 2nd, 2009 | By Steve Puiszis

Proctor & Gamble Co. v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc., 2009 WL 440543 (E.D. Tex., Feb. 19, 2009)

Given today’s economic climate, shifting the costs of electronic discovery is a strategy that should be considered whenever possible. In Proctor & Gamble, the district court rejected the defendant’s attempt to shift the costs of applying optical character recognition (“OCR”) to documents it had agreed to produce in a tagged image file format (“TIFF”). The application of OCR to the TIFF images would make the imaged documents electronically searchable.

chess

While the district court recognized that the application of OCR to the imaged documents was “not absolutely necessary to [the] litigation,” it rejected the defendant’s attempt to shift the cost of OCR processing because the defendant failed to provide any support for its cost estimate, and no valid legal argument to support its claim that the cost burden should be shifted. The defendant advised the court that it did not intend to use the OCR process, and argued that it should not be forced to bear the added OCR expense solely for the plaintiff’s convenience. That argument failed to carry the day in Proctor & Gamble.

Any cost-shifting strategy requires careful advanced planning, and a thorough knowledge of the client’s information systems. While the district court’s ruling in Proctor & Gamble appears relatively straightforward, there are a number of issues that are relevant to any cost-shifting strategy that must be carefully analyzed before a party should even begin to evaluate cost-shifting factors outlined in Zubulake, which was the focus of the district court’s opinion in Proctor & Gamble.

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment »

Follow @ediscoveryblog


Recent Posts

  • Requiring defendant to restore backup tapes would have violated proportionality standard
  • Model order for ediscovery is not just for patent troll cases
  • Puiszis authors feature article on DRI Today about model orders governing electronic discovery
  • Court orders phased discovery under Rule 26′s proportionality principles pending resolution of dismissal motion
  • Making the case for uniform culpability standards for ediscovery sanctions

Categories

  • Accessibility
  • Cost
  • electronic data
  • Forensics
  • Litigation Hold
  • Metadata
  • Preservation
  • Privacy
  • Privilege
  • Production
  • Review
  • Sanctions
  • Uncategorized

Blogroll

  • Death by Email
  • Dennis Kennedy
  • Ediscovery 2.0
  • Fios Inc.
  • For the Defense (DRI)
  • Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP
  • HR Illinois Blog
  • Illinois Institute for CLE
  • Internet Cases
  • kCura Corporation
  • Kroll Ontrack
  • Richmond Journal of Law & Technology
  • The Ethical Quandary
  • The Sedona Conference

Archives

  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • December 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008

Tags

Accessibility attorney-client privilege backup tapes confidentiality Cost costs cost shifting deposition electronic data email employee keyword keyword searching Litigation Hold locations Metadata model order native format not reasonably accessible ocr ordinary course of business Preservation Privacy Privilege Production proportionality Review rhoads routes rule 26c Rule 34 Sanctions searching spoliation state rules stay storage stored communications act strategy text messages trade secrets waiver website content work product doctrine zubulake

Copyright © 2009 Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.