Williams v. Sprint/United Management Co.
62 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1052, 29 A.L.R. 6th 701, 230 F.R.D. 640 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a court orders a party to produce electronic documents in the manner in which they are ordinarily maintained, that production generally includes all metadata unless there is a timely objection, party agreement, or a protective order. Unilateral alteration or removal of metadata or locking of data without court approval or party agreement is improper.
Facts:
- Shirley Williams filed a lawsuit on behalf of herself and others against Sprint/United Management Co. (Defendant), asserting that their age was a determining factor in Sprint’s decision to terminate their employment during a reduction-in-force (RIF).
- During discovery, Plaintiffs requested that Sprint produce Microsoft Excel spreadsheets related to the RIFs in their electronic "active file" version.
- Plaintiffs explained that they needed the electronic versions to perform statistical analysis and to access full entries that were cut off in hard copy or TIFF image productions.
- Sprint, prior to producing the electronic spreadsheets, used software to remove metadata from the files and locked certain cells and data.
- Sprint argued that the metadata was irrelevant, contained privileged information, and that Plaintiffs had never specifically requested it.
- Sprint also claimed it locked cells to ensure the integrity of the data and prevent accidental or intentional alteration.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Williams commenced a collective action lawsuit in April 2003 against Defendant Sprint/United Management Co. in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.
- The case was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings, including discovery, due to its contentious nature.
- Throughout May and June 2005, the Magistrate Judge held several discovery conferences to resolve disputes, including Plaintiffs' requests for electronic RIF spreadsheets.
- On June 1, 2005, the Magistrate Judge ordered Sprint to produce "candidate selection spreadsheets and other basic RIF documents."
- Following further discussions regarding the form of production, the Magistrate Judge issued a show cause order on June 9, 2005, which was memorialized in a June 16, 2005 Order, directing Sprint to produce electronic Excel spreadsheets by June 24, 2005, in the manner they were maintained.
- On June 23, 2005, Sprint produced 3083 Excel spreadsheets in electronic form and committed to producing additional ones by June 27, 2005.
- At a July 7, 2005 discovery conference, Plaintiffs' counsel advised the Magistrate Judge that Sprint had "scrubbed" metadata from and locked certain cells on the produced electronic spreadsheets.
- The Magistrate Judge then issued a July 12, 2005 Order requiring Sprint to show cause in writing why it should not produce the electronic spreadsheets in the manner in which they were maintained and why it should not be sanctioned for scrubbing metadata and locking data without agreement or court approval.
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 court order requiring a party to produce electronic documents “in the manner in which they were maintained” oblige the producing party to include metadata and refrain from locking data, even if metadata was not explicitly requested or mentioned?
Opinions:
Majority - Waxse, United States Magistrate Judge
No, a court order to produce electronic documents “in the manner in which they were maintained” does oblige the producing party to include metadata and refrain from locking data, as metadata is an inherent part of an electronic document and its removal or alteration is an affirmative act. The Court held that when an order requires production of electronic documents in their ordinarily maintained form (e.g., native format or active file), this includes all metadata, unless the producing party timely objects, the parties agree otherwise, or a protective order is obtained. The initial burden to object to metadata production lies with the producing party, as they have access to it and its removal alters the electronic document. While emerging standards like the Sedona Principles suggest a general presumption against routine metadata production without specific request, this presumption is overcome when the producing party knows or should reasonably know that metadata is relevant. Here, Sprint should have known the metadata was relevant given Plaintiffs' allegations of reworking employee pools to pass adverse impact analysis. Sprint's arguments that metadata might be inaccurate or contain privileged information were rejected as insufficient justification for unilateral removal without prior objection or privilege log, except for metadata directly corresponding to previously permitted redactions (adverse impact analyses and social security numbers). Similarly, locking spreadsheet cells and data to maintain integrity was improper; less intrusive methods like "hash marks" could have been used, and Sprint should have sought court approval. However, the Court declined to impose sanctions due to the novelty and undeveloped nature of law regarding metadata production and the arguable ambiguity of its prior orders.
Analysis:
This case is highly significant as it provides early and foundational guidance on the production of electronically stored information (ESI), particularly metadata, in federal litigation. It clarifies that a general order for electronic document production "as maintained in the ordinary course of business" implicitly includes metadata, shifting the burden to the producing party to object if they wish to withhold it. The ruling emphasizes the importance of metadata for understanding electronic documents, especially spreadsheets, and establishes a framework for handling ESI that predates the 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It influences future cases by promoting transparency in e-discovery and requiring proactive engagement by parties regarding the scope of ESI production.
