Case Blurb: Mirbeau of Geneva Lake; Right of a Party to Conduct its own Search

[T]he federal rules do not give a party the “right to conduct its own search of [another party's] electronic devices. Instead, in facilitating the production of ESI, the federal rules “allow the responding party to search his [or her] records to produce the required, relevant data.” Only if the moving party can actually prove that the responding party has concealed information or lacks the expertise necessary to search and retrieve all relevant data, including metadata or residual data, is it proper for the moving party to initiate the searches of the other party’s ESI.

Mirbeau of Geneva Lake LLC v. City of Lake Geneva, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101104, at *3-4 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 15, 2009)

Case Blurb: Mirbeau of Geneva Lake: Paper not a Substitute when ESI is Requested

It is not a valid ground for objection that “relevant, non-privileged, electronic data can be produced in paper form, when the requesting party has specified product in an electronic format.”

Mirbeau of Geneva Lake LLC v. City of Lake Geneva, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101104 at *3 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 15, 2009)

Case Blurb: Mirbeau of Geneva Lake; Discoverability of ESI

The advisory notes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure indicate that the federal rules take an “expansive approach toward discovery of ESI and that “discovery of [ESI] stands on equal footing with discovery of paper documents.” ESI must be produced, “translated, if necessary by the respondent into a reasonably usable form.”

Mirbeau of Geneva Lake LLC v. City of Lake Geneva, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101104, at *2-3 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 15, 2009)(internal citations removed).

Case Blurb: Mirbeau of Geneva Lake; Looking for Standardization of ESI Scope? Don’t.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) allows parties to obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the claim or defense of any party. Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The Court has broad discretion when reviewing a discovery dispute and “should independently determine the proper course of discovery based upon the arguments of the parties.” The court should consider “the totality of the circumstances, weighing the value of material sought against the burden of providing it, and taking into account society’s interest in furthering the truth-seeking function in the particular case before the court.”

Mirbeau of Geneva Lake LLC v. City of Lake Geneva, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101104 at *2 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 15, 2009)(internal citations removed)(emphasis added).