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
- 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?
- 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.