“The Advisory Committee Notes to the newly amended rule make clear that if the information is maintained in a way that makes it ‘searchable by electronic means,’ then ‘the information should not be produced in a form that removes or significantly degrades this feature.’ However, as one commentator has observed, ‘neither default form is intended to mandate production of metadata or embedded data.’ Allman, T., The Impact of the Proposed Federal E-Discovery Rules, 7 Sedona Conf. J. 31 (Fall 2006). The Sedona Principles for Electronic Document Production also suggest that a party should not be required to produce metadata absent a clear agreement or court order. Principle 12, The Sedona Principles…. Having the benefit of the newly amended rules, advisory notes, and commentary of scholars, I respectfully disagree with its conclusion that a producing party ‘should produce the electronic documents with their metadata intact, unless that party timely objects…, the parties agree that the metadata should not be produced, or the producing party requests a protective order.’ As noted in the more recent Wyeth v. Impax Laboratories,“’emerging standards of electronic discovery appear to articulate a general presumption against the production of metadata.'” Although plaintiff may protest that Delaware has adopted local standards which provide a ‘default standard’ against the production of metadata, this court is convinced – at least on the facts of this case – that the production of metadata is not warranted.” Magistrate Wehrman further indicated that “The issue of whether metadata is relevant or should be produced is one which ordinarily should be addressed by the parties in a Rule 26(f) conference. Here, the parties clearly had no agreement that the electronic files would be produced in any particular format. Plaintiff did not notify defendant ISC that it sought metadata until seven months after ISC had produced both hard copy and electronic copies of its documents. Plaintiff has not made any showing of a particularized need for the metadata. Although plaintiff argues generally that it “needs document custodian information for the prosecution of its case” … plaintiff does not identify any specific document or documents for which such information would be relevant and is not obtainable through other means. In most cases and for most documents, metadata does not provide relevant information. Metadata may or may not provide the information plaintiff seeks concerning specific documents in this Case. Depending on the format, the metadata may identify the typist but not the document’s author, or even just a specific computer from which the document originated or was generated.” See Kentucky Speedway v. NASCAR, No.05-138, 2006 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 92028 (E.D.Ky. Dec. 18, 2006).