In response to a request for “electronically stored information in its native format”, the plaintiff produced documents in Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). Magistrate Boylan, sitting in the District of Minnesota, held that the production complied with neither the defendants’ requests nor Rule 34(b)(2)(D), which requires a party objecting to a requested form to state the form or forms of ESI it intends to use. Because the plaintiff never stated a formal objection nor advise the form it intended to use, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to compel re-production of ESI in native format, at Plaintiff’s expense. Cenveo Corp. v. Southern Graphic Systems, No.08-5521, 2009 WL 4042898 (D.Minn. Nov. 18, 2009).
Leave a Reply