In almost all litigation, substantial time, effort and energy is spent crafting document requests. For the recipient of those requests, the cost for data collection, processing and review can be overwhelming. For both parties, the desired outcome of this process is the production set. So, if the documents produced are the ultimate goal, why are some attorneys overlooking their right to demand a properly formatted production set?

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b) does not specify any proscribed form of production for electronically stored information other than requiring that it be produced in a format which is “reasonably useable.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 34(b)(2)(E)(ii). Instead, it grants the requesting party broad leeway to specify the form of production. Id. These concepts are re-iterated in Rule 45 with respect to subpoenas directed at third parties. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 45(e)(1)(B).

More often than not, e-discovery-savvy attorneys craft ESI protocols that carefully set forth the form of production by detailing with specificity exactly how ESI is to be produced by the opposing party. From load file formats to metadata inclusions, databases, native files and privilege logs—the form of production becomes the cornerstone of a lengthy document production request.