Re-emphasizes the importance of having ESI be produced as it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably useable (searchable) form when a large volume of data is produced.
This antitrust dispute between ambulatory surgery centers examined production requests after the defendant asked the plaintiff to go through the terabyte of data (conservatively, millions of pages) it had produced and identify which documents were responsive to its requests.
The court ruled the defendant made no attempt to tailor definitions of requests, often using broad and vague language; however, the court admonished the plaintiffs for using boilerplate language of their own, ignoring the specificity required by the amended Rule 34.
The court concluded that subparagraph (E)(i) of Rule 34 applies only to the production of hard-copy documents, while subparagraph (E)(ii) exclusively governs the production of ESI.
The option to produce ESI in a reasonably usable form is functionally analogous to producing hard-copy documents organized and labeled to correspond to the request because ESI in a searchable format can enable a party to locate pertinent information, regardless of any index or labeling provided by the responding party.
Despite acknowledging the ESI at issue was searchable, the court still ordered the surgical center to provide additional information identifying information already produced because it was "no ordinary case."