Don't Tiff Out Your Database
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.