Hands-on eDiscovery: California Seminar on Responding to Discovery Requests

I had the good fortune to organize a seminar on responding to electronic discovery requests for the Santa Clara County Bar Association’s Civil Practice Committee on February 27, 2013. However, this seminar was different from other eDiscovery CLE’s, because the attendees spent a full hour conducting searches for responsive ESI to requests for production. The speakers included Santa Clara County Judge Socrates Manoukian (currently assigned to civil discovery), Tyler Atkinson of McManis Faulkner and Charlie Kaupp of Digital Statra.

Our seminar first focused for one hour on the California eDiscovery Act, California Rules of Court on eDiscovery, search and strategies for conducting document review.

Unfortunately, there is very little published California case law on eDiscovery. We have two main cases to explore, specifically Toshiba America Electronics Components v. Superior Court, 124 Cal. App. 4th 762, 764 (Cal. App. 6th Dist. 2004), which addressed mandatory cost-shifting for translation of back-up tapes into a reasonably useable form and Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc., 174 Cal. App. 4th 967 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2009), which does not address the eDiscovery Act, but unstated litigation hold issues and eDiscovery abuses resulting in an answer stricken and a default judgment entered.

However, at least one unpublished California opinion hints Courts want more than mere speculation that a discovery production was inadequate:

Following remand, Sukumar asked Nautilus to disclose its e-mails and all other electronically stored information concerning the Med-Fit order. After Nautilus responded that it had already disclosed all relevant documents, Sukumar filed a motion to compel. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that Nautilus’s response was sufficient and Sukumar “has offered only speculation that additional documents exist.” On appeal, Sukumar asserts that the trial court’s order denying his motion to compel should be reversed.

Sukumar v. Med-Fit Sys., 2012 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 3309 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. May 2, 2012).

The appeal in the above case was denied, however it a glimpse at how California courts are handling production issues. Unfortunately, California discovery orders are not published and unpublished cases cannot be cited for any precedential value.  We literally have to watch for tentative orders to see how these issues are being presented to the courts to determine any trends. 

The second hour required attendees to work as teams in a review database finding responsive discovery from the ENRON dataset, which was provided by Digital Strata in their InControl review platform.

Searching for responsive electronically stored information is a frequent topic at continuing legal education seminars, but infrequently a hands-on experience for attorneys. Our attendees were very engaged and diligently worked through the different hypothetical discovery requests.

We gave several case law examples of “bad” discovery requests, such as the following:

Produce any and all information related to email, including messages, from 1997 to 2006. 

Using the above as a reminder that production requests must be reasonably tailored to secure the production of documents relevant to the issues in a Federal lawsuit (See,Thompson v. Jiffy Lube Int’l, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27837 (D. Kan. May 1, 2006)), we developed Requests for Production such as the following for the attendees:

Request for Production 3:

Any and all electronically stored information pertaining to the $56 million loss on Catalytica Energy Systems, sent between 12/01/2000 to 12/31/2001, in native file format, with the following extracted text or metadata:

From, To, CC, BCC, Date, Time, Subject, Document Author, Document Name, Custodian, Control Number, Folder (System File Pathway).

Request for Production 4: 

Any and all electronically stored information authored by Will Nolen, Sally Beck, Susie Ayala, Shona Wilson or David Port relating to project “jedi” sent between 1/01/2000 to 12/31/2001, in native file format with extracted text, substantive and embedded metadata.

One hour of conducting searches is only the beginning of how to respond to discovery requests. However, it is a very good first hour for attorneys who want to learn how to effectively search and respond to discovery requests.

I would like to put together a future program focused on conducting privilege review, redaction, production and privilege log creation at a future seminar. I also think attorneys would benefit from a half to full day conference focusing on practical eDiscovery, such as issuing litigation holds, tracking hold compliance, document review strategies, developing search strings, testing different search tools (i.e., concept, complex Boolean, predictive coding), and production.

Conducting discovery is a skill. Like any skill, it is best to learn it by actually doing it. I believe our profession needs more hands-on eDiscovery events for attorneys to build their comfort level and confidence to competently represent their clients.

Printing ESI & Scanning It Is Not OK

In Indep. Mktg. Group v. Keen, the Defendant-Requesting Party requested the corporate Plaintiff conduct targeted searches with specific key words on specific custodians on the Plaintiff’s server.  Indep. Mktg. Group v. Keen, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7702 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 24, 2012).

The Plaintiff produced one multiple page PDF without any searchable text or metadata.  Indep. Mktg. Group., at *2.

The Defendant requested the Plaintiff do a reasonable search on their server for responsive ESI.  The Plaintiff responded by producing four “poor quality” PDF files without any search text.  The PDF’s were hundreds of pages long.  Indep. Mktg. Group., at *2.

In the course of the discovery dispute, the Plaintiff later refused to re-produce the ESI, claiming a $10,000 production cost was “a prohibitive cost that [Plaintiff] [was] not willing to incur for the production of the documents [Defendants] requested.” Indep. Mktg. Group., at *3.

The Plaintiff later produced disks with files that could not be opened, including system and temporary files. Indep. Mktg. Group., at *3-4, fn 1.

The Court was not thrilled with the Plaintiff’s discovery arguments.  The Plaintiff was a corporation seeking damages in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, plus punitive damages and attorneys fees. Indep. Mktg. Group., at *8.

The Court observed the Plaintiffs production methodology included identifying the responsive ESI on their computer, printing it as paper and then scanning the paper as a non-searchable PDF.  Indep. Mktg. Group., at *4-5.

The Court explained that the Plaintiff did not produce the ESI as it was ordinarily maintained by printing the ESI as paper and then scanning the documents as non-searchable PDF’s.  Indep. Mktg. Group., at *5.  Additionally, the ESI was not produced in a reasonably useable form, because it was non-searchable.  Id.

The Court rejected Plaintiff’s undue burden and cost arguments, noting that there is a presumption that the producing party incurs its own production costs.  Moreover, the Plaintiff never argued the data was not reasonably accessible, which would have been undercut by the fact they could search their computer for responsive ESI that was printed. Indep. Mktg. Group., at *6-7.

The Court ultimately granted to motion to compel, requiring the production to be re-produced in a reasonably useable form and denying an award of attorneys’ fees.

Bow Tie Thoughts

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and corresponding case law are abundantly clear that you cannot degrade searchable files.  Printing ESI and then scanning the paper as non-searchable PDF’s is simply not permitted by the discovery rules.

The other issue parties can end up in trouble over is arguing the cost of eDiscovery being unduly burdensome.  In a case worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, where the ESI is reasonably accessible, it is difficult to argue a production cost of $10,000 to be unduly burdensome.  It is more likely a party would spend a significant amount of money in motion practice, with the end result being the same discovery bill if the party simply produced the information correctly the first time.

Smile for the Discovery Production

In a dispute between a photographer and an educational textbook publisher, the Plaintiff sough the production of a definition list to the Defendants’ database abbreviations.  Bean v. John Wiley & Sons, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4900, 1-3 (D. Ariz. Jan. 17, 2012).

The Defendants’ sales, printing and distribution database was originally produced as screenshots and then as an Excel file.  Bean, at *1-2.

The Excel file column headings contained many alphanumeric abbreviations, such as “LME4” and “VG Enc PAG.”  Bean, at *2.

After reviewing abbreviations reminiscent of a lens focal length formula, the Plaintiff brought a motion to compel the Defendants to produce a “key” to the abbreviations.  Bean, at *2.

The Defendants refused, arguing that the deposition testimony covered the abbreviations and that they did not have to create a document for the Plaintiffs.   Bean, at *2.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34(a)(1)(A) permits a party to request electronically stored information that is “stored in any medium from which information can be obtained either directly or, if necessary, after translation by the responding party into a reasonably usable form.” Bean, at *2, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1)(A).

The Court explained a producing party has the burden of translating the ESI into a reasonably useable form.  Bean, at *2.

While the Excel spreadsheets were “generally” in a reasonably useable form, the “defendant’s use of cryptic abbreviations without definition renders these portions of the spreadsheets meaningless, just as if the data had been produced in code or in a non-readable format.”  Bean, at *3.

The Court disagreed with the proposition that the Defendant had already defined the abbreviations in deposition testimony, because it was the Defendants’ “burden to translate ESI into a useful format.”  Bean, at *3.

The Court reasoned the Plaintiff had requested the definitions of specific abbreviations.  As such, the Court found that requiring the Defendants “to supply definitions already in its possession is not overly burdensome compared to requiring plaintiff to sift through pages of documents.”  Bean, at *3.

Bow Tie Thoughts

It is novel argument, but logical a one, that “translation into a reasonable useable form,” could include producing a definition list of abbreviations.  Given how “text speak” could include a litany of shorthand abbreviations such as LOL (Laugh out Loud), the production of such a list might be necessary so “cryptic abbreviations” would not render a production meaningless.

There are valid arguments that such abbreviations could be defined in deposition or by special interrogatory.  However, requiring a party to conduct additional discovery to define abbreviations within the producing party’s control arguably goes against Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 1, requiring the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to be “construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”

Producing Excel Spreadsheets as Tiffs

A Plaintiff produced Excel spreadsheets in TIFF format.  As one could expect, the Defendant brought a motion to compel in native file format faster than you can sort a column in ascending order.  Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd. v. Seamaster Logistics, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117922 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2011).

The Court quickly held the Excel spreadsheets be produced in native file format.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(ii) requires that ESI created in an electronic format must be produced in “the form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.” Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd., at *1.

The Court sited the Advisory Committee’s Notes to the 2006 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Amendments, which states:

The rule does not require a party to produce electronically stored information in the form it which it is ordinarily maintained, as long as it is produced in a reasonably usable form. But the option to produce in a reasonably usable form does not mean that a responding party is free to convert electronically stored information from the form in which it is ordinarily maintained to a different form that makes it more difficult or burdensome for the requesting party to use the information efficiently in the litigation. If the responding party ordinarily maintains the information it is producing in a way that makes it searchable by electronic means, the information should not be produced in a form that removes or significantly degrades this feature.

Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd., at *1-2, citing Fed R. Civ. P. 34, Advisory Committee’s Note to the 2006 Amendment.

The Court further stated that form of production cases have held it is “improper to take an electronically searchable document and either destroy or degrade the document’s ability to be searched.”  Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd., at *2.

Based on the above, the Court required the production of the Excel files in native format, maintaining search capabilities, formulae, and other features, intact.  Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd., at *3.

Bow Tie Thoughts

Judge Facciola in Covad Communs. Co. v. Revonet, Inc., stated the following on producing Excel files as non-searchable tiffs:

Understandably, taking an electronic document such as a spreadsheet, printing it, cutting it up, and telling one’s opponent to paste it back together again, when the electronic document can be produced with a keystroke is madness in the world in which we live.

Covad Communs. Co. v. Revonet, Inc., 260 F.R.D. 5, 9 (D.D.C. 2009).

Parties can save time and money by producing Excel files as they are ordinarily maintained.  Taking a native file and converting it to a non-searchable file inherently drives up the production costs charged by a service provider.  Moreover, it drives up the cost to review the file, because the information is no longer searchable, requiring more time spent reading multiple TIFFs, instead of coded information in a review database.

Excel files, by their very nature of having formulas and other data, have information populated in multiple fields and on different tabs.  Converting these files to TIFFs causes an explosion of pagination, where a single file can turn into a several hundred-page TIFF.  This creates challenges in document review exactly as Judge Facciola described, where document review regresses to basket weavers putting shredded documents back together again.

Form of Production: (Almost) Anyway You Want It

A Plaintiff in an age discrimination case requested ESI be produced in native format.  Linnebur v. United Tel. Ass’n, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88456 (D. Kan. Aug. 10, 2011).

The Defendants did not assert any objections, but produced the responsive ESI as PDF’s.  Linnebur, at 3.

The ESI at issue included company organization charts, email, payroll and work performance evaluations.  Linnebur, at 4.

As the Court noted, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34 allows a requesting party to state the form of production in their request.  Linnebur, at *5, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b).

If the ESI is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost, the producing party demonstrate any undue burden.  Linnebur, at *5-6, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B).

The Defendants argued the PDF production was sufficient.  Moreover, they argued it was the Plaintiff’s burden to show why they needed the native files. Linnebur, at *6.

As a preliminary matter, the Plaintiff argued that the timing of her being fired was a key issue in her lawsuit.  Linnebur, at *6-7.  The metadata in the discovery was vital to showing when ESI was created, who created it and the file’s history.  Id. This information was not in the PDF production. Id.

The Court took the Defendant to task on their position it was the Plaintiff’s burden to show why native files were needed:

Moreover, the plain language of Rule 26(b) imposes the burden on “the party from whom discovery is sought” to “show the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost.” Defendant makes no such showing. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is granted with respect to the requested ESI.

Linnebur, at *7.

Bow Tie Law

There are Federal litigants across the United States that take the point of view they do not need to produce requested native files.  The plain language of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are squarely against this false proposition.

If a party requests ESI be produced in native file format, it is the producing party’s duty to object and demonstrate why such a production is unduly burdensome.  The producing party might argue the costs involved or whether the ESI needs to be converted to a static image for redactions. However, producing in native file format has a lower processing costs then converting to a non-searchable image.

Exotic Apples: Solutions in Collecting & Processing Apple ESI

My friend Charlie Kaupp at Digital Strata brought the following issue to me:

There is an increasingly prevalent amount of Apple ESI found in corporate environments, especially among executives, engineering, and marketing groups.

Most review platforms do not handle large portions of Apple ESI, including:

Mac email (Entourage, Outlook 2011, Mail.app, Thunderbird)

iWork files (Pages, Numbers, Keynote)

Mac chat transcripts (iChat, Adium)

While some data (MS Office documents, PDFs, plain text, RTF, etc.) can be handled by review platforms due to its cross-platform nature, these successes can obscure larger failures in processing.

For example, a processing/review service excepted out a large file called “Entourage Database” as an unsupported file type. This database contained all the custodian’s email.

This situation should cause attorneys to pause before figuratively leaving Apple ESI on the loading dock.

Given that Apple has sold approximately 7.33 million iPads, 16.24 million iPhones, 4.134 million Macs during the first quarter of 2011 alone, simply logging all Apple ESI as “unsupported” is a formula to ignore potentially relevant electronically stored information.

Apple ESI is discoverable, can be produced in a reasonably useable form (which might require translation into static images with associated extracted text for some file types and review platforms), and therefore should be treated like any other ESI production.  Categorically logging Apple ESI as “unsupported” raises a host of e-Discovery issues. Consider the following:

Duty of Competency & Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rules 26(a), 26(g) & 34 Overview

An argument can be made that globally logging Apple data as “unsupported” can have both ethical violations under a lawyer’s duty of competency and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rules 26(a), 26(g) and 34.

Duty of Competence

A lawyer is ethically required to provide their clients with a duty of competency.  The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, codified as law in many states, require the following:

Rule 1.1: Competence

A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client.  Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.

Initial & Supplemental Disclosures

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(a) requires that a party must disclose the discoverable information that the disclosing party may use to support its claims or defenses.  The Rule specifically requires the following on electronically stored information must be disclosed:

A copy — or a description by category and location — of all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that the disclosing party has in its possession, custody, or control and may use to support its claims or defenses, unless the use would be solely for impeachment; 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2).

A party must also supplement or correct their initial disclosures if they learn their original disclosure is incomplete or incorrect.  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(e)(1).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 37(c)(1) can take a bite out of any Apple ESI by excluding the trial use of any non-disclosed ESI required by Rules 26(a) or 26(e).

 

 

Translation Into a Reasonably Useable Form

The Advisory Committee Notes to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26 acknowledge that some electronically stored information as it is ordinarily maintained is not in a reasonably usable form, and thus requires translation into a form the requesting party can use.  See, Michael R. Arkfeld, Arkfeld on Electronic Discovery and Evidence, §7.7(F), 7-207-208.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34(a)(1)(A) defines electronically stored information as “data compilations–stored in any medium from which information can be obtained either directly or, if necessary, after translation by the responding party into a reasonably usable form.”

Magistrate Judge John Facciola explained Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34(a)(1)(A) in D’Onofrio v. Sfx Sports Group, Inc., 247 F.R.D. 43, 47 (D.D.C. 2008):

In other words, electronic data is subject to discovery if it is stored in a directly obtainable medium. If, however, it is not stored in a directly obtainable medium, a request may be made of the responding party to translate the electronic data into a “reasonably usable form.” Because the step of translating this type of electronic data adds an extra burden on the responding party, the request may only seek for it to be done “if [the translation is] necessary.” It is not the case that this clause requires the responding party to produce data in its original form unless “necessary” to do otherwise.

Certifying Discovery is Complete & Correct 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(g) requires that an attorney of record in a lawsuit sign every response or objection to a discovery request, including initial disclosures under Rule 26(a) (1).  Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1).

The attorney signature certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry:

(A) With respect to a disclosure, it is complete and correct as of the time it is made; and

(B) With respect to a discovery request, response, or objection, it is:

(i) Consistent with these rules and warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law, or for establishing new law;

(ii)  Not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; and 

(iii) Neither unreasonable nor unduly burdensome or expensive, considering the needs of the case, prior discovery in the case, the amount in controversy, and the importance of the issues at stake in the action.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(1)

Rule 26(g) requires an attorney “to stop and think about the legitimacy of a discovery request, a response thereto, or an objection.” Anderson v. Caldwell County Sheriff’s Office, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62263, 10-11 (W.D.N.C. June 10, 2011), citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g) advisory committee’s note to the 1983 amendments.

Furthermore, Rule 26(g) provides sanctions against the attorney, party, or both if a certification violates Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26 with the difficult burden to meet substantial justification. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g)(3).

Upsetting The Apple Cart

It is definite that a producing party that does not disclose or produce any Apple data because the ESI was categorically marked as “unsupported” will have problems, because the attorney arguably did not act completely in either disclosing or producing responsive electronically stored information in a reasonably useable form.  Software exists, such as the product line from Blackbag Technologies, for collecting and producing ESI collected from Apple computers and devices. Simply ignoring or being unaware of technology does not make ESI “unsupported.”

Furthermore, a party representing in a discovery response that Apple ESI is “unsupported” will run into problems, especially if the ESI was actually “supported” had processing technology designed for Mac data been used.  Consider the following “rotten apple” scenarios:

Situation 1: A Court finds a violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34 if the “unsupported” Apple ESI’s existence was disclosed in a discovery response, but not produced in a reasonably useable form.

Situation 2: A Court finds violations of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rules 26(a), 26(g) and 34 if the Apple ESI was not disclosed as “unsupported” files that should been both disclosed under Rule 26(a) and produced in a reasonably useable form pursuant to a discovery request.

Situation 3: Court excludes a party’s Apple ESI that is learned to be both supported and exculpatory after the close of discovery and shortly before trial, because the Apple ESI was not disclosed under Rule 26(a) and thus excluded under Rule 37(c)(1).

Search & Preservation Obligations

Simply labeling Apple ESI as “unsupported” may also invoke very dreaded passages from both Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp 1 and The Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan, et al. v. Banc of America Securities LLC, et al.

Consider the following from Qualcomm 1:

Attorneys’ ethical obligations do not permit them to participate in an inadequate document search and then provide misleading and incomplete information to their opponents and false arguments to the court.

Qualcomm Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 911 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2008).

Consider the following from Pension Committee:

“By now, it should be abundantly clear that the duty to preserve means what it says and that a failure to preserve records – paper or electronic – and to search in the right places for those records, will inevitably result in the spoliation of evidence.”

“[D]epending on the extent of the failure to collect evidence, or the sloppiness of the review, the resulting loss or destruction of evidence is surely negligent, and, depending on the circumstances may be grossly negligent or willful.”

The Pension Comm. of the Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of Am. Secs, LLC, No. 05-9016, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4546, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2010), as corrected, Docket # 358 (May 28, 2010) (court has the obligation to ensure that the judicial process is not abused).

Some Bad Apples

It would not take much to envision a situation where a producing party claims Apple ESI is “unsupported,” and thus cannot be searched or produced in a reasonably useable form. In the course of discovery, the requesting party learns the Apple ESI actually is reasonably useable and should have been processed, searched for responsive ESI and produced accordingly.  The following motion battle would likely invoke elements of “misleading arguments and incomplete information,” with the producing party likely pointing a finger at their service provider.

The Great Danger: Missing What Helps Your Case

A sailor who does not know which course to sail will put their vessel in danger.

Simply tagging all Apple ESI as “unsupported” will have a similar effect on a lawsuit.  Such a global categorization can miss a large body of relevant, responsive, or potentially exculpatory, electronically stored information.

The solution to this situation is very direct: Ask the service provider how they collect, process Apple ESI and address the issue of “unsupported” or “exotic” files.

For example, Charlie Kaupp at Digital Strata suggests the following:

Apple ESI Collection needs have been addressed with tools such as Macquisition from Black Bag, which is a bootable forensic image creation tool akin to Encase or FTK. 

Processing needs have been addressed with services such as Digital Strata’s Review-Ready Conversion service. These services will allow Mac data to be converted to file types that can be handled by review platforms while maintaining chain of custody and all metadata with a load file.

Apple ESI issues should be discussed at the meet and confer with the opposing party, because if one party has a significant amount of Apple ESI, it is a high likelihood the other side also has Apple ESI. Moreover, attorneys who are knowledgeable of the available technology to collect and process Apple ESI, have no reason to ignore Mac data any more.

Disclosure: The team at Digital Strata are personal friends and I have referred clients to them in the past.

Bates Numbering ESI & Other Dates with a Recycle Bin

There are battles that do not make sense.  This is one of those cases.

In a civil dispute over fraudulent investments, the Plaintiff brought a motion to compel the Defendant to “Bates Label” electronically stored information in native file format, because the local Discovery Practices Handbook required Bates numbering of ESI.  U.S. Holdings, Inc. v. Suntrust Bank, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29956, at 13-14 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 23, 2011).

The Defendant countered that to “Bates Label” their prior discovery produced in native file format, they would need to re-produce it as TIFF’s for branding of Bates Labels.  U.S. Holdings, Inc. at *13.  Moreover, the conversion costs would be between $16,000 to $75,000.  Id.

The Plaintiff’s counter argument was $16,000 was not overly expensive given the claims in the lawsuit (notice no mention of $75,000).  U.S. Holdings, Inc. at *13.

The Court stated that the local “Discovery Practices Handbook” required ESI to be produced with Bates Labels.  U.S. Holdings, Inc. at *13.

However, the Court denied the Plaintiff’s motion to compel, but ordered all future ESI productions to be Bates Labeled (and by default converted to a static image and therefore driving up the costs of discovery).  U.S. Holdings, Inc. at *13-14.

The Court explained that the Plaintiff did not counter the Defendant’s argument that Bates Labeling of ESI requires conversion of native files to TIFF or PDF.  Id.

The Court specifically held:

 

It appears that there was no objection to the production of ESI in native format; and, it appears that the vast majority of the ESI produced is not directly relevant to the claims and defenses in the case at bar. Therefore, at this stage of the litigation, and under the circumstances of this case, Defendants are not be required to Bates label the ESI already produced. However, any future production of ESI shall be Bates labeled.

U.S. Holdings, Inc. at *13-14.

 

Bow Tie Thoughts

Any default local “discovery handbook” requiring ESI to be converted to a static image for “Bates Labeling” needs a date with a recycle bin.

First, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 1 states the following, in relevant part:

These rules govern the procedure in all civil actions and proceedings in the United States district courts… They should be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.

(As amended Dec. 29, 1948, eff. Oct. 20, 1949; Feb. 28, 1966, eff. July 1, 1966; Apr. 22, 1993, eff. Dec. 1, 1993; Apr. 30, 2007, eff. Dec. 1, 2007.)

Any interpretation of a “Discovery Handbook” that can increase the cost of litigation $16,000 to $75,000 clearly violates the first rule of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that cases be “administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”

Second, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34(b)(2)(E) states, in relevant part:

(i) A party must produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request;

(ii) If a request does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, a party must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms; and

(iii) A party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.

Jannx Med. Sys. v. Methodist Hosps., Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122574, at *8 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 17, 2010).

The above interpretation of the “Discovery Handbook” stands directly opposed to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34(b)(2)(E).

The issue of “Bates Labeling” electronically stored information is understandable given the decades of legal assistants stamping paper documents.  However, that dogmatic practice has come to an end with electronically stored information.  Data cannot be forced into a paper model of production that 1) drives up the cost of discovery and 2) violates the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  Just imagine converting an Excel file with multiple tabs and fields to a static image solely for the sake of branding a number on it.

The issue of “Bates Labeling” is solved with 1) Assigning records control numbers and 2) Producing MD5 or SHA5 hash numbers as production fields with metadata.  These digital fingerprints are the 21^st Century way to address these issues, not compounding the cost of discovery by converting searchable native files to static images for the sake of branding them with a number.

Parties should discuss at a meet and confer how ESI should be produced.  There is nothing that should stop parties from determining that “Bates Labeling” of ESI is producing a hash value, reported to the Court in a joint statement, which can be codified as a court order at a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 16(b) conference.

The future is now.  We should not limit discovery “Bates numbers” to paper productions of the 1950s with the technology available today.

A PDF Production is Not How a Native File is Ordinarily Maintained

In a production dispute over native files, Magistrate Judge Paul Cherry shows us (again) that producing native files as non-searchable PDF’s does not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34. Jannx Med. Sys. v. Methodist Hosps., Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122574 (N.D. Ind. Nov. 17, 2010). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34(b)(2)(E) states:

 (i) A party must produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request;

(ii) If a request does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, a party must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms; and

(iii) A party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.

Jannx Med. Sys., at *8.

The Plaintiffs produced certain native files as PDF’s.  The Defendants argued that the files were normally maintained in a searchable form and the PDF production destroyed their ability to “effectively search or analyze the information.”  Jannx Med. Sys., at *9.  As the Court explained,

“Defendants are unable to determine which of the produced documents are associated with particular maintenance transactions, how the produced reports were generated, or even what data the reports rely upon.” 

Jannx Med. Sys., at *9-10. 

Plaintiffs’ Arguments for PDF Production

The Plaintiffs claimed that their PDF production complied with Rule 34, because the Defendant did not state a form of production.  Jannx Med. Sys., at *10.

The Plaintiffs argued that two cases, one before the 2006 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, justified their PDF production.  Jannx Med. Sys., at *10.  The Court did agree there were times when a PDF production complied with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

This was not one of them.  Jannx Med. Sys., at *10-11. 

The Court stated the Plaintiffs “ignored” the case law they cited, which discussed the Advisory Committee Note to the 2006 Amendments.  Jannx Med. Sys., at *11.  As the Court restated,

“[I]f the responding party ordinarily maintains the information it is producing in a way that makes it searchable by electronic means, the information should not be produced in a form that removes or significantly degrades this feature.”

Jannx Med. Sys., at *11 (citation omitted). 

Don’t Make Productions More Difficult to Search

The Plaintiffs also argued that since the Defendant did not state a form of production, they were, in the words of the Court, “stuck with the form in which Plaintiff chose to produce the information.”  Jannx Med. Sys., at *11.

The Court again cited to the 2006 Advisory Committee Notes, stating,

“[T]he option to produce in a reasonably usable form does not mean that a responding party is free to convert electronically stored information from the form in which it is ordinarily maintained to a different form that makes it more difficult or burdensome for the requesting party to use the information efficiently in the litigation.” 

Jannx Med. Sys., at *12, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 Advisory Committee’s Note on the 2006 Amendments.

As the Court so aptly put: “It appears that this is exactly what Plaintiff has done in this case.”  Jannx Med. Sys., at *12.

The Court ordered the production of ESI “in an electronic database format that allows the information to be reasonably usable, i.e., fully searchable and manipulable, with the connections between data fields intact.”  Jannx Med. Sys., at *12.

Bow Tie Thoughts

Case law is riddled with discovery games of stripping searchable features from native files.  Such tactics drive up discovery costs because of wasted time in coding databases that should be populated with fielded data; unnecessary OCR costs of static images when ESI was already searchable; and associate attorneys spending the best years of their lives reviewing now non-searchable static images one file at a time, when they should be searching for what is relevant. 

Civil litigation unfortunately can be a blood sport.  Between the “gotcha” tactics and legitimate concerns for redacting confidential information, Courts will be dealing with cases like the above for years to come.

Circular Form of Production Objections

In a form of production battle, the producing party claimed they were denied the opportunity to object to the form of production, because the requesting party did not state a form of production.  The Court did not need to use Pi to solve this circular argument.

Procedural Circles

After a motion to compel battle, the Defendants were ordered to produce their general ledger in electronic format within 10 days of the Court’s order. Estate of Eva Boles v. Nat’l Heritage Realty, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79770, at *7 (N.D. Miss. Aug. 6, 2010).

The Defendants were to also file with the Court an itemized cost breakdown on their production costs.  Id.

The Defendants argued they should be allowed to produce their ledger in PAPER format within 4 to 6 weeks of the Court order.  Estate of Eva Boles, at *7.

The Defendants first estimated their production costs to be $30,000.  They upped the ante and requested the Plaintiffs deposit $292,296.07 with the Court for their production costs.  Estate of Eva Boles, at *8.

The Court said “No” to the paper production and the $292,296.07 deposit.

After several hearings on numerous issues, the Defendants finally produced the general ledgers…sort of.

The Defendants explained in their production letter that the ESI produced was encrypted and subject to the following limitations:

1) Could only be viewed on a single computer;

2) Could not be printed;

3) Could not be e-mailed; and

4) Would only be accessible until September 3, 2010.

Estate of Eva Boles, at *12.

The Defendants also would be notified once the license to view had been activated.  Estate of Eva Boles, at *12.

The Court in turn ordered the Defendants to produce unrestricted ESI.  The Defendants filed an emergency motion for reconsideration.  Estate of Eva Boles, at *12-13.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34 Redo

The Defendants’ key argument was that they were “denied” the “procedural protections” of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34.

To recap Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34:

A party can request, “any designated documents or electronically stored information . . . stored in any medium from which information can be obtained either directly or, if necessary, after translation by the responding party into a reasonably usable form.” Estate of Eva Boles, at *16, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34(a)(1)(A).

A party “may specify the form or forms in which electronically stored information is to be produced.” Estate of Eva Boles, at *16-17, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34(b)(1)(C).

The producing party may object to the form of production and state which form they intend to use. Estate of Eva Boles, at *17, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34(b)(2)(D).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34(b)(2)(E) states:

 (i) A party must produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request;

(ii) If a request does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, a party must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms; and

(iii) A party need not produce the same electronically stored information  in more than one form.

The Defendants’ argument can be summarized as circular:  They claimed did not object to the form of production, because the Plaintiffs did not state a form of production, therefore, they were denied the opportunity to object to the form of production.  Estate of Eva Boles, at *18.

The Defendants did not raise any objections on the form of production until their third hearing on producing the general ledgers, which was 6 months after the request was first served and three months before trial.  Estate of Eva Boles, at *19-20.

The general rule on objections is if you fail to timely object to a discovery request, you waive your objection.  Estate of Eva Boles, at *20.

That is exactly what the Court held.

The Court further took the Defendants to task for their production failures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(ii), which states that when no form of production is stated, the ESI must be produced in “a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.” Estate of Eva Boles, at *22.

Even if there had not been a waiver of their objections, the Defendants still did not comply with Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(ii).

Bow Tie Thoughts

Discovery can turn into a war of attrition:  Drive up the cost to force the other side to give up.

The Defendants’ attempt to force a $292,296.07 paper production is exactly one of those tactics, whether intentionally or not.  The repeated motion practice also would drive up the cost of litigation.

e-Discovery does not mean production costs are perfunctory expensive.  However, protracted form of production battles that go on for months will drive up costs; form of production arguments sprung on a court in the waning months before trial will unnecessarily drive up costs, let alone tick off the judge.

Piercing the Work Product Doctrine: Gamesmanship with Locked PDF’s

The Plaintiffs in Mack v. HH Gregg, Inc. sued the Defendants for breach of contract over the alleged failed installation of dryers.

The parties agreed the Defendants would produce a “summary of its dryer installation invoices that would include the state of the sale, date of purchase, amount paid for delivery and installation, and the make and model of dryer purchased.”  Mack v. HH Gregg, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8281 (S.D. Ind. Jan. 29, 2010).

The Defendants in turned produced an 11,757 page “locked” PDF summary for the Plaintiffs. Mack, at *2.

The Plaintiffs were understandably upset (hence the motion to compel) about getting a giant PDF that they could not edit or manage without re-typing the entire file. 

The Plaintiffs wanted the ability to “re-group” the data.  Mack, at *3.  In the litigation support profession, this would be the re-unitization of the scanned paper or ESI converted to static images, either based on logically grouping documents or simply at document breaks, in a litigation support review platform.  For example, if you had a medical file, the reviewing attorney would have the doctor’s handwritten notes, x-rays and the pathology report as separate documents, instead of viewing the file as one giant document. 

The Plaintiffs requested the Defendants produce the PDF in its original file format.  The Defendants refused, claiming the following objections:

(1) The PDF was protected from discovery by the work product doctrine;

(2) The Defendant was not required because the parties never agreed to the format in which the information would be produced, and

(3) Production would be unduly burdensome. 

            Mack, at *3.

A Case Study in Watching the Court Sink Your Arguments

The “Free Ride”

The Defendant’s argued the Plaintiffs would get a “free ride” on the Defendants’ work if the Plaintiffs could have the PDF in an “unlocked” form. Mack, at *4.

First, the Defendants agreed to produce the responsive information as a summary instead of producing the actual information.  Secondly, the Defendants voluntarily produced the PDF as a summary of the Plaintiffs’ requested information.  Mack, at *3-4. 

The Court stated whether the PDF was unlocked and editable or locked and uneditable had “no bearing on its status as work product.” Mack, at *3. 

The Court held there was no substantive difference between the locked PDF verse the PDF in its original file format.  Mack, at *4.  Thusly, the argument that the Plaintiffs would somehow get a “free ride” if the Plaintiffs could manipulate the data fell flat.

The Form of Production

The Defendants claimed that since no form of production was specified by the Plaintiffs, the Defendants could produce a locked PDF.  Mack, at *5.

The Court’s holding: No.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(ii) states:

 “…if a request does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, a party must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.” Mack, at *5.

The Court explained the PDF summary was a data compilation that should have been produced in a reasonably usable form.  Mack, at *5.  However, the Defendants chose to produce the 11,757 page PDF that contained around 600,000 individual sales of dryer installations in a locked form.  Mack, at *5-6.  Any attempt to logically unitize the data would have required the Plaintiffs to retype the entire document.  Mack, at *6.  This is not a “reasonably usable form.”

The Court noted that the Plaintiffs in earlier discovery requested all electronically stored information be produced in a form that a “less convenient format.” 

The Court found the Defendants’ form of production arguments to be meritless. 

Undue Burden

The Court was “skeptical” of the Defendants’ undue burden arguments, because that would mean the Defendants themselves did not keep a reasonably usable unlocked file for themselves to use. Mack, at *6-7.

The Court opined that if the Defendants did not keep an unlocked version of the PDF, “…the only plausible motive for rendering the document useless to itself was to set up the very problem that has now arisen, allowing it to plead burdensomeness. If that is the case, [the Defendants] consciously and purposefully created its burden.” Mack, at *7.

In a not-so-shocking order considering the above, the Court granted the Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of the summary document in its original format. 

Bow Tie Thoughts

Non-Searchable PDF’s

Working with a single non-searchable PDF that is 11,000 pages long is not my idea of a good time.  I helped a friend on a case where the opposing party produced thirteen non-searchable PDF’s each with 1,000 to 2,000 pages (the production was from scanned paper).  We had the service provider logically re-unitize the pages based on document breaks, run optical character recognition over the files and AL Coder for auto-coding.  The newly converted TIFFS with searchable OCR were then loaded into CT Summation iBlaze for review. 

Production Games

Courts frown on gamesmanship. Moreover, Judges scowl at those who take reasonably usable electronically stored information and convert it to a non-usable form without proper objections, perhaps for redactions.  Even then, a producing party would be hard pressed to not produce an un-redacted static image without extracted text and the redacted static image without searchable OCR, minus the redacted sections of the converted ESI. 

The consistent answer across case law from the last five years is that productions should be in a reasonably usable form. Those who eliminate the searchable features do so at their own peril.