|
|
|
| Authored by: caecer on Saturday, July 07 2012 @ 10:29 AM EDT |
That would be true if the documents were produced in their original
electronic format. But read the full paragraph.
15 a.
Google
collected documents from over 86 custodians for this case. Google
16
delivered to its document vendor over 97 million documents for electronic
processing and review.
17 Pursuant to Google’s obligations under the
parties’ Joint ESI Agreement [Dkt. 67], Google’s
18 document vendor filtered
custodial documents for production by running agreed-upon key-term
19
searches, and converted documents to TIFF images for production. Over the course
of this
20 litigation, Oracle served nine separate Requests for Production
of Documents, with 204 individual
21 document requests. Google
electronically produced over 3.3 million documents in response to
22
Oracle’s requests, and Google’s 60 separate document productions span over 20
million pages.
So the lawyers in this case agreed beforehand
to deliberately make production and use of the documents much more expensive on
both sides by doing this conversion. This is one of my favorite gripes about
lawyers and electronic document production -- what is the point of electronic
production when they go through a process like this? I always request that they
get the originally formatted documents if at all possible (it is also an example
of why lawyers should consult with their experts before making such
agreements.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: caecer on Saturday, July 07 2012 @ 10:34 AM EDT |
And you wouldn't believe what some lawyers seem to think adequate production of
a spreadsheet/workbook/database is! Have you ever tried to figure out what a
workbook does when all you have is a 5x removed photocopy of a fax of a printout
of (the visible part of) the first sheet of a workbook?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
