The views expressed in this blog are those of the owner and do not reflect the views or opinions of the owner’s employer. All content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only. The owner of this blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site. The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information. This policy is subject to change at any time. The owner is not an attorney, and nothing posted on this site should be construed as legal advice. Litigation Support Tip of the Night does not provide confirmation that any e-discovery technique or conduct is compliant with legal, regulatory, contractual or ethical requirements.
Featured on the ACEDS blog.
Follow me on Twitter and see How-To Videos on my YouTube channel.
New tips for paralegals and litigation support profesionals are posted to this site each night. Click on the blog headings for better detail.
This is a more detailed version of a post from May 21, 2015:
In Hagenbuch v. 3B6 Sistemi Elettronici Industriali, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10838 (N.D. Ill.), Magistrate Judge Ashman granted a plaintiff's motion to compel the production of ESI in its original state, that the defendant had produced converted to tiff images. He rejected the defendant's contention that they were compiling with FRCP 34(b)'s requirement that documents be produced as they are kept in the usual course of business by granting the plaintiffs access to their offices, but refusing to let them copy electronic media. 3B6 argued that its production of tiff images was necessary to allow for bates numbering that would allow for documents to quickly located and authenticated, and access to databases was barred by the 11th Circuit's decision in In re Ford Motor Co.. It did not suggest the ESI sought by contained privileged information. The court rejected bates numbering as the only possible method to keep track of documents, and distinguished its holding from In re Ford Motor Co., in that the plaintiffs were not asking for unrestricted access to databases containing privileged information.