Skip to content

MENU

Farrell Fritz, P.C. logo
HomeAuthorFarrell FritzSubscribeContact

All About eDiscovery

Case Law & Best Practices

Home » Failure to Cooperate During Discovery Results in Expensive Costs for Reproduction

Failure to Cooperate During Discovery Results in Expensive Costs for Reproduction

Photo of Kathryn Cole
By Kathryn Cole on September 2, 2015
Posted in Cooperative, ESI, Litigation Budget

 

Themis Bar Review, LLC v. Kaplan, Inc., WL 3397877 (S.D. Cal. May 26, 2015).

In this action, defendant served plaintiff with a request for production that sought, among other things, documents related to the plaintiff’s pass rate and the data substantiating the pass rates posted in the plaintiff’s advertising materials. The plaintiff produced the relevant data in a PDF format from Microsoft Excel spreadsheets.  This format, in turn, stripped the documents of all their “user friendly” capabilities (i.e., the ability to filter, sort, and/or search the excel charts).

The defendant complained that the PDF format was not the native format the data was kept in by plaintiff.  Defendant further stated that the plaintiff also failed to respond to any of its many requests during a meet and confer conference wherein defendant asked for the metadata and related email documents.  In response, plaintiff argued that they would comply with defendant’s request to produce the emails and metadata in native form only if defendant paid for the associated costs.

Under Federal Rule Civil Procedure 34, the production of documents or ESI must be produced in “a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.” As such, the court found that the defendant had notified the plaintiff of the need to produce the spreadsheets and emails in an Excel format, and had tried to meet and confer as contemplated by the parties jointly submitted “Discovery Plan.”

Not surprisingly, given the judicial desire for a cooperative discovery process, the court ordered the plaintiff to reproduce the emails and the associated metadata in searchable format and further ordered plaintiff to pay for the costs of reproduction.  This case, like many others in recent months, serves as a good reminder that often the client is best served by a counsel willing to cooperate during discovery.  What’s more – a cooperative counsel often retains credibility in the eyes of the Court.

Tags: Cooperation, ESI, Metadata, Native File
Print:
EmailTweetLikeLinkedIn
Related Posts
  • What Can A Litigator Do When There are Hundreds of Thousands of Documents to Review in a Short Period of Time, and a Strict Litigation Budget is in Place?
  • E-Discovery Best Practices to Avoid Discovery Sanctions
  • Cooperation and Collaboration in E-Discovery is Still the TARget
  • Courts Won’t Go “Where Angels Fear to Tread” When Deciding On Search Term Issues
  • The Costs of E-Discovery and What May be Recoverable Under 28 U.S.C. § 1920

Blog Authors Show/Hide

  • Kathryn Cole

Stay Connected

RSS LinkedIn Twitter Facebook

Subscribe By Email

Topics

Archives

Recent Updates

  • When Does My Duty to Preserve End?
  • Cooperation and Collaboration in E-Discovery is Still the TARget
  • Courts Won’t Go “Where Angels Fear to Tread” When Deciding On Search Term Issues
  • Blink, And I’m Gone: E-Discovery Challenges and Considerations With Ephemeral Messaging
  • Judges Make the Case for TAR

Farrell Fritz Blogs

  • Federal Government Civil Litigation
  • Long Island Land Use & Zoning
  • New York Business Divorce
  • NY Commercial Division Practice
  • NY Health Law
  • NY Trusts & Estates Litigation
  • NY Venture Hub
  • Tax Law for the Closely-Held Business
Copyright © 2021, Farrell Fritz, P.C. All Rights Reserved.
DisclaimerPrivacy Policy
RSS LinkedIn Twitter Facebook
Attorney Advertising
Powered By  LexBlog
Farrell Fritz, P.C. (main office): 400 RXR Plaza, Uniondale, NY 11556-3826 (516) 227-0700