Looking to Comment 12 of the Sedona Principles, the Court holds that “when a party is ordered to produce electronic documents as they are maintained in the ordinary course of business, the producing party should produce the electronic documents with their metadata intact, unless that party timely objects to production of metadata, the parties agree that the metadata should not be produced, or the producing party requests a protective order.” The court notes that Comment 12 “lists several ways in which routine preservation and production of metadata may be beneficial. The comment balances these potential benefits against the ‘reality that most of the metadata has no evidentiary value, and any time (and money) spent reviewing it is a waste of resources.’ … ‘Of course, if the producing party knows or should reasonably know that particular metadata is relevant to the dispute, it should be produced.'” Applying these principles, the court indicates that “the initial burden with regard to the disclosure of the metadata would therefore be placed on the party to whom the request or order to produce is directed. The burden to object to the disclosure of metadata is appropriately placed on the party ordered to produce its electronic documents as they are ordinarily maintained because that party already has access to the metadata and is in the best position to determine whether producing it is objectionable. Placing the burden on the producing party is further supported by the fact that metadata is an inherent part of an electronic document, and its removal ordinarily requires an affirmative act by the producing party that alters the electronic document.” While declining to sanction the defendant, the court rejected its objections on grounds of privilege, relevancy, and the failure of plaintiffs’ to specifically request metadata, and ordered the spreadsheets at issue, with the corresponding metadata, to be produced. Williams v. Sprint/United Management Co., 230 F.R.D. 640 (D.Kan. 2005).