The 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provided some clarity with respect to electronically stored information. However, Rule 34 remains muddled. Courts and commentators have proffered differing interpretations, leaving litigators to struggle with two questions: 1) Does Rule 34 itself, without more, require the production of metadata? 2) Does a requesting party have to specifically request metadata before a responding party can be compelled to produce it?
In 2005, the District of Kansas in Williams v. Sprint/United Management Co. ("Williams I"), 230 F.R.D. 640, 646- 57 (D. Kan. 2005) relied on the 2005 Sedona Principles (http://tinyurl.com/ LTN901SK1) to conclude that there was "a general presumption against the production of metadata," but was careful to note the exception that metadata should be produced when the producing party is aware — or should be reasonably aware — that it is relevant to the dispute.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
