Denying a motion for sanctions for the failure to produce metadata, Magistrate Whalen quotes language in other cases to the effect that “most metadata is of limited evidentiary value, and reviewing it can waste litigation resources”; that “in most cases and for most documents, metadata does not provide relevant information?” and that “emerging standards of electronic discovery appear to articulate a general presumption against the production of metadata.” The court goes on to note the plaintiff’s concern that “particularly with regard to emails, the metadata might contain relevant information about who composed or received the message that might not appear in the PDF or hard copy.” However, the affidavit submitted by defendant states that “APEX was ‘custom created’ for use by CUMIS for policy and claims management, and does not generate metadata. Thus, with regard to APEX files, the issue is moot: Defendant cannot produce what does not exist. With regard to Lotus Notes email messages, they ‘contain only a small amount of metadata. This includes the date and time of the creation of the message file, as well as a long string of characters that serves as a unique identifier for each message.’ She has reviewed the screen-shots of the email message produced for Plaintiff, and that ‘all metadata pertaining to the individual messages, except for the unique identifier referred to in the above paragraph is visible on these printouts.’ Hence, except for an ‘identifier’ that would have no evidentiary value, the relevant metadata (such as date and time of creation) appears in the PDF copy. Were this not the case, there would be value in producing the metadata. However, since the PDF copies contain all the relevant information that Plaintiff would otherwise glean from the metadata, I agree with Defendant that producing the metadata for the emails would be unduly burdensome.” See Michigan First Credit Union v. Cumis, No.05-74423, 2007 WL 4098213 (E.D.Mich. Nov. 16, 2007).