in Re State Farm Lloyds
520 S.W.3d 595, 60 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1114, 2017 Tex. LEXIS 482 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When parties dispute the form for producing electronically stored information (ESI), a court must not automatically defer to the requesting party's choice but must instead apply a proportionality test, balancing the burden and expense of the requested format against its likely benefit and the needs of the case.
Facts:
- Residential homeowners filed insurance claims with their insurer, State Farm Lloyds, for hail damage to their properties.
- In the ordinary course of its business, State Farm used a central repository, the Enterprise Claims System (ECS), to manage claims.
- The ECS routinely converted and stored claims-related information, which was created in various original ('native') formats, into secure, read-only 'static' formats like PDF, TIFF, or JPEG.
- In a subsequent lawsuit alleging underpayment of their claims, the homeowners requested that State Farm produce all ESI in its original 'native' format.
- The homeowners argued native format was essential to view metadata, utilize spreadsheet formulas, see tracked changes, and search the information more effectively, features lost in static formats.
- State Farm objected, contending that producing in native format would be an extraordinary and burdensome undertaking requiring a new process to locate and extract files from numerous upstream sources.
- State Farm offered to produce the information in a searchable static format directly from its ECS, asserting this was a 'reasonably usable' alternative that was more convenient, less burdensome, and less expensive.
Procedural Posture:
- Residential homeowners sued State Farm Lloyds in separate state trial court proceedings, alleging underpayment of hail-damage claims.
- The homeowners filed discovery requests demanding State Farm produce all ESI in its native format.
- The trial court granted the homeowners' request and ordered State Farm to produce ESI in its native or near-native form.
- State Farm, the relator, sought a writ of mandamus from the state intermediate appellate court to overturn the trial court's discovery order.
- The court of appeals denied mandamus relief, holding that State Farm had not provided sufficient evidence of burden and was required to produce in the form requested.
- State Farm then filed petitions for writs of mandamus in the Supreme Court of Texas, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by ordering production of electronically stored information (ESI) in its native form, as requested by one party, without balancing the proportionality factors when the responding party objects and offers to produce the information in a different, "reasonably usable" form?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Guzman
Yes, a trial court must balance proportionality factors before ordering production of ESI in a specific form when the responding party objects. The court held that neither the requesting nor the producing party has a unilateral right to specify the format of ESI production. Under Texas Rules of Civil Procedure 196.4 and 192.4, all discovery is subject to a proportionality analysis that requires a case-by-case balancing of jurisprudential considerations. When a responding party objects to a requested ESI format and offers a 'reasonably usable' alternative, the trial court is obligated to balance the enhanced burden or expense of the requested form against factors such as the likely benefit of that format, the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, and the importance of the issues. A party seeking metadata-rich native files must demonstrate a particularized need, not mere speculation. If the burdens outweigh the benefits, the court should deny the request unless the requesting party demonstrates a particularized need and pays for any 'extraordinary steps' required.
Analysis:
This decision establishes proportionality as the 'polestar' for resolving disputes over the form of ESI production in Texas, aligning state practice with federal rules. It shifts the legal framework from a requester's right to demand a specific format to a court-managed balancing test, emphasizing reasonableness and efficiency. The ruling requires parties seeking costly or burdensome ESI formats, such as native files with metadata, to make a particularized showing of need, thereby discouraging reflexive or strategic discovery demands. This precedent will likely serve to control litigation costs and prevent parties from using expensive e-discovery as a tool of attrition.
