Adkins et al v. Apple Inc et al

Filing 109

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE re 107 , 108 Statements. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 11/18/2014. Plaintiffs' request for an order compelling defendants to produce ESI in native format is DENIED. Defendants may produce the requested ESI in the form proposed in their individual statement. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2014)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PATRICIA SUE ADKINS, et al., Case No. 14-cv-01619-WHO Plaintiffs, 8 ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE v. 9 10 APPLE INC, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 107, 108 Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 The parties have been unable to agree on the format for defendants’ production of 13 electronically stored information (“ESI”) and have submitted individual statements to the Court 14 regarding this dispute. Dkt. Nos. 107, 108. Plaintiffs request that defendants produce all ESI in 15 native format, except for documents containing redactions, which plaintiffs agree may be 16 produced in searchable PDF format. Dkt. No. 108. Defendants propose to produce ESI in 17 searchable PDF format accompanied by standard metadata fields, except for Excel spreadsheets, 18 which defendants have agreed to produce in native format. Dkt. No. 107. Defendants have also 19 agreed to meet and confer regarding the production of other ESI in native format on a case-by-case 20 basis. Id. 21 Plaintiffs’ request for an order compelling defendants to produce ESI in native format is 22 DENIED. The advisory committee’s notes to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b) make clear 23 that where “the form of production is not specified by party agreement or court order, the 24 responding party must produce electronically stored information either in a form or forms in 25 which it is ordinarily maintained or in a form or forms that are reasonably usable . . . The rule does 26 not require a party to produce electronically stored information in the form in which it is ordinarily 27 maintained, as long as it is produced in a reasonably usable form.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b) advisory 28 committee’s notes (2006 Amendments); see also, Silicon Labs Integration, Inc. v. Melman, No. 1 08-cv-04030-HRL, 2010 WL 4588887, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2010) (“Absent agreement by the 2 parties or a court order as to the form of production, a party must produce electronically stored 3 information either in a form in which the data ordinarily is maintained or in a form that is 4 reasonably usable.”). Defendants’ proposed form of production appears reasonably usable – 5 indeed, it appears to be the industry standard – and plaintiffs have not provided the Court with any 6 persuasive grounds for finding otherwise. Accordingly, defendants may produce the requested 7 ESI in the form proposed in their individual statement. 8 Finally, when it comes time to determine class certification I must decide whether counsel has the ability to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1), 10 (2) and (4). To date, plaintiffs’ counsel has shown a disturbing inability to comply with the rules 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 9 of this Court. Five days ago, I issued an order admonishing plaintiffs’ counsel (for the second 12 time in one month) for attempting to raise a discovery issue in violation of the Court’s Standing 13 Order for Civil Cases. See Dkt. No. 106 at 2. Today, counsel filed her individual statement late 14 and in violation of the font-size and line-spacing requirements of the Civil Local Rules. See Civil 15 L.R. 3-4(c)(2). If plaintiffs’ counsel cannot comply with the basic rules of this Court, it is 16 undoubtedly to the benefit of the class she seeks to represent that she find another attorney to 17 litigate this case. 18 19 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 18, 2014 ______________________________________ WILLIAM H. ORRICK United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?