E-Discovery
Court Orders Re-Production of Technical Files in Native Format
Why This Alert Is Important
This ruling emphasizes the necessity for organizations to ensure that electronic files produced during discovery maintain their original structure and metadata, which can be crucial for preserving evidence integrity.
Overview of the Case
In this action for breach of contract, fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California addressed the standards for producing technical project files requiring specialized software. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant breached their contract by failing to deliver essential firmware source codes and design files. During discovery, the Defendant produced over 20,000 technical files processed through Relativity, stripping them of their original structure.
Plaintiff's vendor found 17,857 files unusable. Plaintiff motioned to compel the production of "pure" native files, arguing that Defendant failed to produce the files in a reasonably usable form. Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, highlighting the importance of maintaining file structure and metadata during e-discovery.
Case Ruling
Read on for key elements of the case ruling.
Proportional discovery required
The party seeking discovery must establish that its request is relevant to the matter under the requirements of Rule 26(b)(1), while a party opposing discovery must demonstrate why it should not be permitted with specific reason. In its ruling, the court explained it "enjoys broad discretion when resolving discovery disputes, which should be exercised by determining the relevance of discovery requests, assessing oppressiveness, and weighing these factors in deciding whether discovery should be compelled.” Under its analysis, the technical files were relevant and they must be produced.
Usability of Native Files
The ruling further clarified that under FRCP 34(b)(2)(E)(ii), that if no form is specified, electronically stored information should be produced in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form. By processing the files through Relativity and altering their original formats, the Defendant failed to comply with this rule.
Compelled Re-Production in Native Format
The court mandated the re-production of the technical files in their pure native format. Defendant's argument failed to counter the plaintiff's argument that sending the technical files would be "quick and easy," as they failed to identify a reason why it would be burdensome to do so.
Like many prior e-discovery decisions, the decision here appears to be based largely on the advocacy of the parties. Here, the Defendant objected to producing the requested technical documents in their “pure native format” without contesting that Relativity processing had altered that format in their first production, thereby losing the original hierarchical structure of the files. The Defendant also failed to allege or establish any significant burden to reproducing the files in their original native format. That left this an easy decision for the Magistrate Judge.
Case Law Tip
Whether you're making a motion or objecting to one, it pays to be specific. Avoid boilerplate objections and use facts and details that demonstrate burden, reasonableness, and proportionality (or the opposite!). Download our guide to the FRCP to learn more!