eDiscovery Daily Blog
Court Orders Plaintiff to Produce Native Format Version of Email Potentially Altered: eDiscovery Case Law
In Lifetouch National School Studios, Inc. v. Roles, No. 3:15-cv-234 (W.D. P.A., Dec. 15, 2016), Pennsylvania District Judge Kim R. Gibson granted the portion of the defendant’s motion to compel associated with the request for the plaintiff to produce all copies of a potentially altered email in native format circulated within its organization or any of its agents.
Case Background
In this breach of contract case, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had accepted a sales position with a competitor of the plaintiff company (Strawbridge Studios, Inc.) and solicited the plaintiff’s employees and customers in violation of her employment agreement. During discovery, two different versions of a particular email were produced: one received by a client where the client wrote “Strawbridge[,] No contract.” and the other received by Strawbridge forwarded by an employee (Joseph Segall) of the plaintiff where the client had written “Strawbridge[,] No contract. Beth Roles.”
Both individuals who wrote the emails testified under oath that they did not include the defendant’s name in the emails, leaving the defendant to request leave to amend her counterclaim, alleging that the Strawbridge email was altered by the plaintiff to interfere with her employment at Strawbridge. The Court granted as unopposed the defendant’s motion for leave to amend. The defendant then filed a motion to compel production of, among other things, copies of the email in native format from all individuals at the plaintiff’s organization to whom it was forwarded or sent.
Judge’s Ruling
Judge Gibson first commented on the relevancy of the email, stating “Based on Roles’s counterclaims, this information falls within the scope of relevant material. Roles’s counterclaims are premised on the allegation that Lifetouch intentionally altered the August 25, 2015 email. Documents illustrating how that email was circulated within Lifetouch relate to whether Lifetouch did in fact alter the August 25, 2015 email, and—if so—how that alteration occurred.”
When assessing the appropriateness of discovery of the emails, Judge Gibson, noting that the plaintiff appeared to have abandoned earlier privilege objections for the emails, noted “Lifetouch appears to argue that it has already produced enough information regarding the emails. Lifetouch states that Roles ‘already has a copy of the email from Segall to Strawbridge,’ and Lifetouch goes on to explain that it has produced PDF versions of the email and the native form of the email as forwarded from Segall to Strawbridge. Further, Lifetouch argues that ‘a copy of that email in native form is not only unreasonable, but not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible information based on those emails that have already been produced.’”
In response, Judge Gibson said “These arguments are insufficient to avoid discovery. As an initial matter, the fact that Roles already has a copy of the August 25, 2015 email has no bearing on whether Lifetouch altered the email. The relevance of the documents Roles seeks is derived from their circulation within Lifetouch; a complete picture of how the email was received, discussed, and ultimately sent—or even discussed after it was sent—would be relevant to Roles’s claims. Thus, the fact that Roles already has a copy of the email is irrelevant. And Lifetouch’s argument that it should not have to produce these documents because it already produced a copy of the email from Segall to Strawbridge is unpersuasive for the same reasons.”
Judge Gibson also noted that, while arguing that production in native format is unreasonable, “Lifetouch does not explain what about native production would be unreasonable. Furthermore, Lifetouch specifically agreed ‘to produce . . . electronic documents in native format’ in the parties’ Rule 26(f) Report.”
As a result Judge Gibson granted the portion of the defendant’s motion to compel associated with production of the potentially altered email in native format and also ruled that “attorneys’ fees for this portion of Roles’s Motion to Compel are proper” and ordered the defendant to submit an affidavit detailing the attorneys’ fees she incurred in bringing her Motion to Compel.
So, what do you think? Was it appropriate to order production of the email in native format? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.
Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by CloudNine. eDiscovery Daily is made available by CloudNine solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Daily should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.