Covad Communications Co. v. Revonet, Inc., 267 F.R.D. 14 (D.D.C. 2010)

Nine discovery motions were before the court. One of the motions dealt with the format in which certain email correspondence must be produced – an issue with a considerable procedural background. The court held that Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allowed for production in either native format or another usable format. Absent a reason at this stage as to why metadata would yield an answer beyond hard copies, production in native format was not required:

“Moreover, Covad does not offer a word as to why it needs native format to analyze and use the 2,832 pages it already has. There is no question presented by them that only the metadata can answer. In the absence of some reason to believe that the metadata will yield an answer that the hard copy will not, production of the information in native format at this stage of this protracted struggle is not necessary. See The Sedona Conference, Best Practices, Recommendations, & Principles for Addressing Electronic Document Production # 12 (2004) (“Unless it is material to resolving the dispute, there is no obligation to preserve and produce metadata absent agreement of the parties or order of the court.”). Thus, as far as Covad’s motion relates to the re-production of all of the 2,832 pages in a native format, the motion to compel is denied.”


Related Documents:

The Sedona Conference® Cooperation Proclamation

Covad Communications Co. v. Revonet, Inc., “Covad II”, 258 F.R.D. 5, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47841 (D.D.C. May 27, 2009)


Full text available at…

Open pdf