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.
California Appellate Decision: Trial Court Can Reject Expert Request for ESI in Quickbooks Format
September 9, 2018
Last month, the Court of Appeal of California issued a decision, Daus v. Howser, No. C082786, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5398 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 8, 2018) which denied a discovery motion seeking the production of previously produced evidence in a different format. Judge Elena Duarte found that the Plaintiff could not show prejudice because it merely argued that the additional discovery would merely facilitate the presentation of evidence to the jury.
The Plaintiff sought the production of documents in the Quickbooks format which had been produced as PDFs. The opinion cites Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.280 which states that party is not required to produce ESI in more than one form. It was found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to find an exception to this rule. It was permitted to reject the uncontradicted testimony of the Plaintiff's expert that, "it was necessary to have the information in Quickbooks and that the PDF files were insufficient." Id. at *39.