Justice Judith Gische
Hinshaw & Culbertson sought to recover fees for legal services rendered to e-Smart defendants. Defendants interposed counterclaims and asserted a third-party claim, which the court narrowed to SEC and Wells notice-based claims for malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty regarding a single document. The court noted most discovery already produced was in electronic format, and H&C sought meta-data embedded in such documents. The court granted both the motion and cross-motions to the extent that each party was directed to produce its document discovery in a format that included the meta-datasecondary information not readily apparent on the face of the document that described an electronic document’s characteristics. It noted meta-data was considered part of an electronic document, thus was discoverable. Also, contrary to H&C’s contention, there was no authority that any additional showing, that the electronic document was altered or fabricated, was necessary before production of meta-data should be ordered by a court. The court stated that pedigree information included in the meta-data was often important to determine admissibility at trial.
