I am Shocked 
Could context and structure really be that important?

Chris Flynn



> Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:04:28 -0700
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Court Orders Party to Explain How Documents Produced in Digital Format Were ...
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 
> use this link to access the full blog posting
> 
> http://shrinkster.com/12fp
> 
> Sent to you by pakurilecz via Google Reader: Court Orders Party to
> Explain How Documents Produced in Digital Format Were Ordinarily
> Maintained via Electronic Discovery Law by [log in to unmask]
> (K&L Gates) on 10/13/08
> Pass & Seymour, Inc. v. Hubbell Inc., 2008 WL 4240490 (N.D.N.Y. Sept.
> 12, 2008)
> 
> In this patent infringement case, the court addressed the issue of
> whether, in response to 72 separate document requests, the plaintiff's
> production in digital format of 405,367 pages of documents, apportioned
> among 202 unlabeled folders and which through application of litigation
> support software could be made text searchable, but was otherwise
> neither organized to correlate to the document demands nor in any
> fashion indexed or labeled to reflect how they were maintained in the
> ordinary course of plaintiff's business, satisfied the responding
> party's obligations under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil
> Procedure. Plaintiff asserted that, pursuant to FRCP 34, it had
> produced the documents in the manner in which they were maintained in
> the ordinary course of business and therefore need not indicate to
> which request the documents were responsive. In support of its
> position, plaintiff offered only the statement of an attorney
> indicating that the documents had been assembled as they had been
> maintained.
> 
> Defendant countered that the production did not comport with the letter
> or spirit of the rule, and sought an order compelling plaintiff to
> organize the documents produced and to disclose which were responsive
> to each of the 72 document requests. Agreeing in part with defendant,
> the court ordered plaintiff to provide some additional information
> regarding the organization of the documents in the ordinary course of
> its business.
> 
> The court began its analysis by observing that the issue was governed
> by Rule 34(b)(2), “which provides, in relevant part, that unless
> otherwise stipulated or ordered a party responding to a demand by a
> federal court litigant for the production of documents ‘must produce
> [them] as they are kept in the usual course of business or must
> organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the
> request; . . .’” 2008 WL 4240490, *2 (citing Rule 34(b)((2)(E)(i),
> relating to production of paper documents).
> 
> The court acknowledged that Rule 34 allowed for production of
> information in the manner it was ordinarily maintained. However, the
> court went on to note that “more in the way of organization is required
> in order to make the document production meaningful, and thus proper”
> and pointed out that “the rule contemplates that a party selecting this
> option disclose information to the requesting party regarding how the
> documents are organized in the party’s ordinary course of business.”
> 
> The court held that the plaintiff failed to fulfill its discovery
> obligations by producing the documents with no attendant information
> regarding how the documents had been maintained. In so deciding, the
> court indicated the minimum requirements for compliance:
> As the foregoing reflects, a party who in response to a discovery
> demand has chosen to produce documents as they are ordinarily
> maintained must do just that – produce the documents organized as they
> are maintained in the ordinary course of producing party's business,
> with at least some modicum of information regarding how they are
> ordinarily kept in order to allow the requesting party to make
> meaningful use of the documents. At a minimum, that means that the
> disclosing party should provide information about each document which
> ideally would include, in some fashion, the identity of the custodian
> or person from whom the documents were obtained, an indication of
> whether they are retained in hard copy or digital format, assurance
> that the documents have been produced in the order in which they are
> maintained, and a general description of the filing system from which
> they were recovered.
> 
> The court then ordered plaintiff to provide additional information
> regarding the organization of the documents in the ordinary course of
> its business, but declined to require plaintiffs to organize the
> documents to correspond with the 72 requests, as defendant had
> requested. In so holding, the court made an interesting comment about
> the potential impact of electronic discovery and its attendant tools
> and processes on the rule’s requirements:
> The court appreciates the burden associated with attempting to organize
> and collate 405,367 pages of documents, and further recognizes with the
> advent and increased use of digitized information and litigation
> support software, large quantities of documents can be rendered both
> manageable and text searchable. Accordingly, it can be argued that less
> by way of organizational information should be required than
> historically may have been the case in order to permit informed use of
> documents produced by an opponent.
> 
> A copy of the decision is available here.
> 
> 
> Things you can do from here:
> - Subscribe to Electronic Discovery Law using Google Reader
> - Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your
> favorite sites

_________________________________________________________________
Want to do more with Windows Live? Learn “10 hidden secrets” from Jamie.
http://windowslive.com/connect/post/jamiethomson.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!550F681DAD532637!5295.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_domore_092008
List archives at http://lists.ufl.edu/archives/recmgmt-l.html
Contact [log in to unmask] for assistance
To unsubscribe from this list, click the below link. If not already present, place UNSUBSCRIBE RECMGMT-L or UNSUB RECMGMT-L in the body of the message.
mailto:[log in to unmask]