## Facts

- A former employee sued her employer alleging gender-based disparate treatment and related employment claims under District of Columbia and federal statutes.
- During discovery, the plaintiff sought production of the employer’s business plan and requested that documents maintained in the normal course be produced in a manner that preserved and identified where they were kept.
- The employer produced the business plan, but not in its original electronic (native) format and without associated metadata.
- The plaintiff moved to compel production of the business plan in its original electronic format, including metadata, relying on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34.

## Issues

1. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, must a responding party produce ESI in native format with metadata when the requesting party did not specifically request that form and the information was already produced in a reasonably usable form?
2. Must metadata be produced absent a showing that it is relevant or necessary to use the produced document in the litigation?

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to compel to the extent it sought native-format production and metadata.
- The court held that Rule 34 does not require production of ESI in original electronic format, including metadata, absent a timely and specific request for that form.
- The court accepted the employer’s non-native production as compliant because it was reasonably usable and the plaintiff did not establish a concrete need for metadata.

## Legal Principles

- Under Rule 34(b), the requesting party may specify the form or forms in which ESI must be produced.
- If the requesting party does not specify a form, the responding party may produce ESI in a form in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form.
- Rule 34 does not create an automatic entitlement to native files or embedded metadata; the producing party’s obligation is satisfied by a reasonably usable production absent a specific request.
- A party seeking metadata should identify it in the request and, when disputed, show why the metadata is relevant or necessary rather than merely preferred.

## Conclusion

The court refused to compel production of a business plan in native format with metadata because the plaintiff did not clearly request that form under Rule 34 and did not show that metadata was needed beyond a reasonably usable production already provided.


D’Onofrio v. SFX Sports Grp., Inc., 247 F.R.D. 43 (D.D.C. 2008)