What is difference between an electronic document and a digital document?

 In conclusion, the difference between an electronic document and a digital document lies in their underlying characteristics and applications. An electronic document refers to a pure data representation that can be read by a computer but has no vocation of being editable, it is structured for automated processing. On the other hand, a digital document includes data that is human readable, but not structured and easily processed by computers.

Electronic records are data that can be stored in digital computer systems, and are often used within those systems. Digital records can be electronic records, but they can also be printed out and used in external communication and internal workflows. 

Electronic records can be analog or digital, and often include items like emails, digital images, and purchase receipts. They are not intended to represent actual documents, and are structured for automated processing. For example, an electronic document might be a pure data representation that can be read by a computer, but it's not meant to be edited. 

Digital records can be more interactive and collaborative than electronic records. They can be edited, updated, and integrated into workplace processes, making them more user-friendly than paper files. For example, digital documents can be like "living" files, such as invoices and personnel records.

Print Page

Whether photograph can be proved even if its negative is not produced?

It is contended by counsel on behalf of the Defendant that the photographs can only be proved by producing the negative of the photographs and by leading evidence of the photographer. This dogmatic approach to consider the admissibility of only photograph   as   evidence   is   oft   applied   by   relying   upon   two judgments of this Court in the case of Laxman Ganpati Khot V. Anusuyabai, AIR 1976, (BOM)168 and Sabera Begum Vs. G M Ansari, 1978 LawSuit (Bom) 106. The judgments lay down a sound mode of proof of a photograph; in the facts of the case of Laxman (Supra), the only mode of proof.  However, that is not only way in which a photograph, like any other document under all circumstances, could be proved.   In the case of Laxman (Supra), the negative was sought to be proved. From the negative an enlarged print was made which was sought to be proved.   Such enlargement was made by a mechanical device by an expert who was the photographer.   How this law came to be laid down in the case of  Laxman (supra) must be first appreciated.    That was the case in which an adoption of a boy was sought to be proved.   One of the documentary evidence relied upon in support of the adoption ceremony which was alleged was a negative of a photograph of the adoption ceremony; not the positive of the photograph. The son of the then deceased photographer deposed.  He produced the negative of the photograph after he was shown the positive photograph and called upon to search the negative from his father's records.  He produced the negative and deposed that he could not say whether that negative was prepared by his father. Hence it was held that the negative was not duly proved and was not admissible in evidence.  The judgment essentially deals with the mode of proof of a negative of a photograph and the admissibility   of   such   a   negative.     The   judgment   does   NOT consider the admissibility of a positive photograph.    The ruling run thus :  It is only when the person who takes a photograph and develops it into a negative himself comes into the box and deposes to both those facts that a negative becomes admissible in evidence. Together with such a negative the positive photograph which was given to the witness to search out its negative was not produced.   An enlarged print made from another photo print in respect of which the negative was lost was produced.     It was observed that as regards the admissibility of such enlarged print,   the position was worse.  The observation of the Court why the print of a photograph cannot be admissible runs thus :    ….. no print or enlargement can be admitted in evidence without its negative being produced and proved in the manner already indicated above.   That   was   not   the   photograph,   but   an   enlargement   of   the photograph.   It could be made only by a skilled mechanical process.  Hence the observation.   A simple photograph may be taken by any one.   It may be developed by any other.  The person taking the photograph or the  person  present when  it was taken  can  depose  as to its taking, much as a person writing or signing a document or present when it is written or signed can depose as to that fact. Upon such deposition the writing becomes admissible subject, of course,   to cross examination  of the  witness proving the document.     A photograph is much the same.   It has to be identified.     Evidence   has   to   be   led   about   the   truth   of   the contents   of   the   photograph   which   is   done   upon   such identification.  A photograph, or any other document, may be proved by any of the 7 ways in which any document may be proved as set out in the case of Rani Bai Vs, LIC,  A 1981 MP 69 pg. 72.   There is nothing in law which bars proof of a photograph by the person taking (clicking) the photograph who may be analogous to a scribe or signatory of a document, a person present when it was taken, the expert (photographer) who took the photograph and developed it from its negative, the acquaintance being the person who is acquainted with the contents of the photograph i.e. the persons or objects therein, or even the person who can compare its contents with other evidence.   What must be appreciated is that admissibility of a document is a stage prior to appreciation of such documentary evidence. What   would   not   be   admitted   into   evidence   cannot   be appreciated  upon marshalling the evidence.  Hence to consider the merits of a given case, admitting a document in evidence must be upon the direct oral evidence of its existence.   Such evidence enjoins its admittance into evidence so as to give the witness,   or   the   party   producing   such   evidence   though   such witness, the right of being heard upon the case he seeks to make out.  Considering admissibility of documentary evidence does not allow a court to bar a party from being heard upon the evidence sought to be produced.  The technicality that only one mode of evidence set out in a judgment must be adhered to without seeking exceptions or variations, or without application of mind by any other mode, is to not allow party the right to be heard upon documentary evidence he / she seeks to produce because it happens to be a photograph.  If this were so, no photographs can in future be ever admitted in evidence as they all would be digital productions having no negatives.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY  ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO.19 OF 1999 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.864 OF 1996 

Ronald Fernandes V. Mrs. Rita Pinto         CORAM :   MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.            

DATE     :   8th      May, 2013. 

Print Page

Whether memory card produced by accused during cross examination of witness can be exhibited?

 Trial court when confronted with said position was required to take the memory cards and CD and also to mark as exhibit tentatively so as to avoid hampering of progress of the trial. Hon'ble Supreme Court in me judgment rendered in the case of Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat & Anr., MANU/SC/1529/2001 : 2001 (2) Supreme 65 : (AIR 2001 SC 1158, paras 12 to 15), has ruled that whenever an objection is raised during evidence taking stage regarding admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial Court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit. It shall be advantageous to quote paras 13 to 16 of the said judgment:

"13. It is an archaic practice that during the evidence collecting stage, whenever any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any material in evidence the court does not proceed further without passing order on such objection. But the fall out of the above practice is this: Suppose the trial court, in a case, upholds a particular objection and excludes the material from being admitted in evidence and then proceeds with the trial and disposes of the case finally. If the appellate or revisional court, when the same question is re-canvassed, could take a different view on the admissibility of that material in such cases the appellate court would be deprived of the benefit of that evidence, because that was not put on record by the trial court. In such a situation the higher court may have to send the case back to the trial court for recording that evidence and then to dispose of the case afresh. Why should the trial prolong like that unnecessarily on account of practices created by ourselves. Such practices, when realised through the course of long period to be hindrances which impede steady and swift progress of trial proceedings, must be recast or re-moulded to give way for better substitutes which would help acceleration of trial proceedings.

14. When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitute is this:Whenever an objection is raised during evidence taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. If the court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is sustainable the Judge or Magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from consideration. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course. (However, we make it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of stamp duty of a document the court has to decide the objection before proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above can be followed.)

(Emphasis supplied)

15. The above procedure, if followed, will have two advantages. First is that the time in the trial court, during evidence taking stage, would not be wasted on account of raising such objections and the court can continue to examine the witnesses. The witnesses need not wait for long hours, if not days. Second is that the superior court, when the same objection is re-canvassed and reconsidered in appeal or revision against the final judgment of the trial court, can determine the correctness of the view taken by the trial court regarding that objection, without bothering to remit the case to the trial court again for fresh disposal. We may also point out that this measure would not cause any prejudice to the parties to the litigation and would not add to their misery or expenses.

16. We, therefore, make the above as a procedure to be followed by the trial courts whenever an objection is raised regarding the admissibility of any material or any item of oral evidence.

(Emphasis added)

7. The trial court should have allowed to play the Laptop so as to contradict the witness with his earlier statement in order to enable him to admit or deny the same. It along with exhibit would remain tentative.

8. At the stage of cross-examination for contradicting PW (2), the defence should have been allowed to play the Laptop and even prayer for placing on record the memory cards and CD should have been granted which would remain subject to objection and a necessary note to that extent should have been recorded, as is permissible in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal's case (MANU/SC/1529/2001 : AIR 2001 SC 1158), as referred above.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

561-A No. 72 of 2015

Decided On: 24.05.2016

 Sultan Mir and Ors. Vs. State of J. & K.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram: Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, J.

Citation: AIR 2017 J & K 9

Print Page

When court should direct production of electronic documents by defendant?

The submission of Mrs. Pratibha Singh, learned senior sounsel for the
defendants/appellants is that the onus to prove the defamation lies upon the
plaintiff. It is for the plaintiff to produce the so-called defamatory telecast
and publication. She submits that the plaintiff has placed on record, what
are claimed to be, the transcripts of the telecasted programme. It is the
plaintiff who should produce his copy of the recording/CD of the
programme, and also place on record the affidavits of the persons who have
prepared the recording and the transcripts in accordance with Section 65B of
the Evidence Act. She submits that the defendants cannot be called upon to
produce evidence which may be used by the plaintiff against the defendants.
She further submits that in case the plaintiff is not possessed of the video
recording of the telecasted programme, then also he should file an affidavit
to this effect, and should disclose as to how the transcripts were prepared –
and by whom. Only thereafter the defendant may be called upon to produce
the copy of the telecasted programme. In support of her submissions, she
has placed reliance on:
i) Sadhu Ram – Bali Ram v. Ghandham Dass-Madan Lal, Civil Rev.
No.688/1971 decided on 17.10.1973
ii) Prakash Vishwasrao Kohok v. State of Maharashtra, Crl. A No.177
of 1993 decided on 22.04.1996;
iii) Golla Jayamma & Ors. V. District Collector & Ors., W.P. No.9616,
9622 & 9676/2007 decided on 17.10.2008;
iv) Arun Jaitley Vs. Arvind Kejriwal (supra) passed by this Court in

9. On the other hand, Mr. Malhotra, learned senior counsel for the
plaintiff has submitted that since the original recording/ publication are in
power and possession of the two defendants, and the said defendants have
not denied the factum of the telecast of the television programme and
publication of the news article, the plaintiff is entitled to seek discovery and
production of the said documents from defendants by resort to Order 11
Rule 14 CPC. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the
judgment in M.L.Sethi (supra) which is also relied upon and explained by a
Division Bench of this Court in M. Sivasami v. Vestergaard Frandsen A/S
& Ors., 2010 I AD (Delhi) 211.
10. Order XI Rule 14 CPC reads as follows:
“14. Production of documents.- It shall be lawful for the court,
at any time during the pendency of any suit, to Order the
production by any party thereto, upon oath, of such of the
documents in his possession or power, relating to any matter in
question in such suit, as the court shall think right; and the
court may deal with such documents, when produced, in such
manner as shall appear just.”
11. A plain and grammatical meaning of the said rule is that a party to the
suit, who is in possession or power of a document, may be directed by the
Court during the pendency of the suit to produce the same. It is not any or
every document that a party may be called upon to produce from his power
or possession. The document should be one “relating to any matter in
question in the suit, as the Court shall think right;”. The document of which
the plaintiff seeks production, namely the original recording of the
impugned telecast, and the original publication of the impugned article
would, obviously, be in the power and possession of the defendants since the
defendants are the authors of the said works, and they have been telecast/
published by the defendants. There cannot be any dispute that the telecasted
programme and the published news article relate to matters in question in
the suit. In fact, the entire suit revolves around the said telecasted
programme/ publication. As noticed hereinabove, there is no dispute about
the factum of the impugned telecast being made, or the impugned article
being published by the respective defendants. The plaintiff has produced the
transcript of the programme as telecasted. The copy of the telecasted
programme as well as the copy of the publication made by defendant No.2-
even if produced by the plaintiff, shall constitute secondary evidence. The
plaintiff is obliged to cause the production of the best evidence and only in
case the original is not produced, or is not capable of being produced, the
plaintiff may lead its copy in evidence as secondary evidence.
12. The submission of Ms. Singh that the plaintiff should first produce its
own version of the video recording of the telecast, before calling upon the
defendant No.1 to do so, has no merit. This is for the reason that it is not
necessary that the plaintiff may even be possessed of a copy of the video
recording. As aforesaid, the production of the said copy – even if possessed
by the plaintiff, would not suffice as that would not be the best evidence
which the plaintiff is obliged to lead. So far as the obligation of the plaintiff
to prove the transcripts of the telecasted programme is concerned, it is for
the plaintiff to take steps in that regard, and if the plaintiff fails to do so, the
plaintiff shall take its consequences. The defendant cannot insist that the
plaintiff should produce its copy of the telecasted programme; that the
plaintiff should state on oath if he is not possessed of the video recording of
the telecasted programme; the plaintiff should lead in evidence the person
who has prepared the transcript of the telecast and the plaintiff should also
lead in evidence a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. It is
no concern of the defendants as to how the plaintiff wishes to pursue its
case.
13. This Court in M. Sivasami (supra) has culled out the purpose sought
to be achieved by resort to a proceeding under Order XI Rule 14 CPC. The
Division Bench in paragraph 7 of this decision, inter alia, observed:
“7. … … … A reading of the aforesaid provisions of Order
11 Rules 12 and 14 bring out certain salient features as under:
(i) The documents sought to be discovered and
produced have to be relevant to the matter in
controversy viz matters in question.
(ii) The documents have to be in the possession
and power of the person against whom discovery
and production is sought. 
(iii) Discovery and production of the documents
which are sought for are necessary at that stage of
the suit;
(iv) The discovery and production is necessary for
fairly disposing of the suit or for saving costs.
(v) The discovery and production may be general
or limited to certain classes of documents as the
Court in its discretion deems fit and the production
will only be ordered if the Court considers it just.”
14. In M.L.Sethi (supra), the Supreme Court, inter alia, observed in
relation to the procedural scheme contained in Order XI CPC:
“that the rules of procedure envisaged under Order 11 of the
Code and the rules of evidence contained in Chapter 10 of the
Act operate in different spheres. They may appear to be
analogous in certain areas, but the purpose or object behind
these provisions would clearly tell us that the former rules are
meant to shorten the litigation at the initial stage before the
trial and the latter rules of evidence are meant to discover the
truth at the stage of trial or giving evidence. Not only that
discovery of facts or discovery of documents can be allowed
only with the leave of the court, discovery by means of
interrogatories can be objected on the ground that it is
scandalous, Irrelevant, mala fide and on the ground of
privilege. The answer to the interrogatory shall be by means of
an affidavit. Similarly, discovery of documents can be objected
on the ground of legal or professional privilege; that they may
tend to criminate a party or expose him to forfeiture; that they
are protected by public policy; that they are not in the sole
possession of the party; that they solely relate to the case of the
party; that they are in the possession of the party as an agent or
a representative of another; and that they disclose evidence of
party’s own case.”.
15. It is not the case of the defendants/ appellants that the plaintiff is
seeking production of documents which are confidential in nature or have 
proprietary information belonging exclusively to one party, which
information such party is entitled to protect from coming into the hands of
the opposite party, who is his competitor.
16. I may observe that during the course of her submissions Ms. Singh
has argued that the transcript of the impugned programme which was
telecasted by defendant No.1 is not a correct one. It is claimed that the
plaintiff has deliberately omitted vital parts of the said programme while
filing the transcripts. The simplest and the straightforward way to cut-short
that controversy is to direct the defendants to produce the original of the
telecasted programme as well as the publication made in the newspaper
DNA. Such a direction to the defendants would certainly lead to cutting
short the scope of the trial which would, in turn, lead to expeditious disposal
of the suit and also save costs.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Dated: 08.05.2017
CS(OS) 143/2015
NAVEEN JINDAL V M/S ZEE MEDIA CORPORATION LTD & 
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

Print Page

When electronic document DVD can not be used as previous statement as per S 145 and S 155(3) of Evidence Act?

Matters being so, the said documents marked as

D30 and D31 in evidence, even if those documents are

admissible under Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act

as an electronic record, the same cannot be made use of as

a previous statement within the meaning of Section 145 as

well as Section 155(3) of the Indian Evidence Act.

Admittedly, those DVDs contain the matters recorded by the

investigating officer or some other matters available at the

scene of occurrence during the preparation of the scene

mahazar.      A mahazar cannot be treated as a previous



statement at all.    What was seen by the person, who

prepared the mahazar, are recorded in the mahazar. It is

only a document.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM

                                                      PRESENT:

                         MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

           TUESDAY,THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015
                                           Crl.MC.No. 7647 of 2015 ()
                                              

    MOHAMMED NISSAM A.A., Vs  THE STATEOF KERALA
           




Coram:  B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

Print Page

Whether application to play compact disc is tenable during defence evidence in criminal case?

 We are not inclined to go into the truthfulness of the
conversation sought to be proved by the defence but, in the
facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed above, we
are of the view that the courts below have erred in law in not
allowing the application of the defence to get played the
compact disc relating to conversation between father of the
victim and son and wife of the appellant regarding alleged
property dispute. In our opinion, the courts below have erred
in law in rejecting the application to play the compact disc in
question to enable the public prosecutor to admit or deny, and
to get it sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, by the
defence. The appellant is in jail and there appears to be no
intention on his part to unnecessarily linger the trial,
particularly when the prosecution witnesses have been
examined.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1525 OF 2015
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9151 of 2015)

Shamsher Singh Verma Vs State of Haryana 

Dated;November 24, 2015.

Print Page

Whether omission to produce CCTV footage will be fatal to prosecution case?

The Supreme Court of India in Tomaso Bruno & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. dated 20-01-2015 viewed that "omission to produce CCTV footage which is the best evidence, raises serious doubts about the prosecution case."

A full bench of Justices Anil R. Dave, Kurian Joseph and R. Banumathi held that "to invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the main point to be established by the prosecution is that the accused persons were present in the hotel room at the relevant time. 

Hotel Manager stated that CCTV cameras are installed in the boundaries, near the reception, in the kitchen, in the restaurant and all three floors. Since CCTV cameras were installed in the prominent places, CCTV footage would have been best evidence to prove whether the accused remained inside the room and whether or not they have gone out. 

CCTV footage is a strong piece of evidence which would have indicated whether the accused remained inside the hotel and whether they were responsible for the commission of a crime. It would have also shown whether or not the accused had gone out of the hotel. 

CCTV footage being a crucial piece of evidence, it is for the prosecution to have produced the best evidence which is missing. Omission to produce CCTV footage, in our view, which is the best evidence, raises serious doubts about the prosecution case." Court added.

Allowing the appeal and setting aside the convictions of the accused under Section 302/34 IPC the Court further held that:

With the advancement of information technology, scientific temper in the individual and at the institutional level is to pervade the methods of investigation. With the increasing impact of technology in everyday life and as a result, the production of electronic evidence in cases has become relevant to establish the guilt of the accused or the liability of the defendant. 

Electronic documents strictu sensu are admitted as material evidence. With the amendment to the Indian Evidence Act in 2000, Sections 65A and 65B were introduced into Chapter V relating to documentary evidence. Section 65A provides that contents of electronic records may be admitted as evidence if the criteria provided in Section 65B is complied with. 

The computer generated electronic records in evidence are admissible at a trial if proved in the manner specified by Section 65B of the Evidence Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 65B makes admissible as a document, paper print out of electronic records stored in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer, subject to the fulfilment of the conditions specified in sub-section (2) of Section 65B. 

Secondary evidence of contents of document can also be led under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. PW-13 stated that he saw the full video recording of the fateful night in the CCTV camera, but he has not recorded the same in the case diary as nothing substantial to be adduced as evidence was present in it.

Production of scientific and electronic evidence in court as contemplated under Section 65B of the Evidence Act is of great help to the investigating agency and also to the prosecution. 

Relevance of electronic evidence 

The trial court in its judgment held that non-collection of CCTV footage, incomplete site plan, non-inclusion of all records and sim details of mobile phones seized from the accused are instances of faulty investigation and the same would not affect the prosecution case. Non-production of CCTV footage, noncollection of call records (details) and sim details of mobile phones seized from the accused cannot be said to be mere instances of faulty investigation but amount to withholding of best evidence. It is not the case of the prosecution that CCTV footage could not be lifted or a CD copy could not be made.

As per Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act, if a party in possession of best evidence which will throw light in controversy withholds it, the court can draw an adverse inference against him notwithstanding that the onus of proving does not lie on him. The presumption under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act is only a permissible inference and not a necessary inference. 

Unlike presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, where the court has no option but to draw statutory presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. 

Under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, the Court has the option; the court may or may not raise presumption on the proof of certain facts. Drawing of presumption under Section 114 (g) of Evidence Act depends upon the nature of fact required to be proved and its importance in the controversy, the usual mode of proving it; the nature, quality and cogency of the evidence which has not been produced and its accessibility to the party concerned, all of which have to be taken into account. It is only when all these matters are duly considered that an adverse inference can be drawn against the party.

The High Court held that even though the appellants alleged that the footage of CCTV is being concealed by the prosecution for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the accused did not invoke Section 233 Cr.P.C. and they did not make any application for production of CCTV camera footage. 

The High Court further observed that the accused were not able to discredit the testimony of PW-1, PW-12 and PW-13 qua there being no relevant material in the CCTV camera footage. Notwithstanding the fact that the burden lies upon the accused to establish the defence plea of alibi in the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, prosecution in possession of the best evidence–CCTV footage ought to have produced the same. 

In our considered view, it is a fit case to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence Act that the prosecution withheld the same as it would be unfavourable to them had it been produced.

In the present case, the courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence and the gap in the chain of circumstances sought to be established by the prosecution. The courts below have ignored the importance of best evidence i.e. CCTV camera in the instant case and also have not noticed the absence of symptoms of strangulation in the medical reports. 

Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the circumstances and the evidence adduced by the prosecution do not form a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the accused and the benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused and the conviction of the appellants is liable to be set aside", the Court Said.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 142 OF 2015

(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No. 1156/2013)

TOMASO BRUNO Vs STATE OF U.P.

Date;January 20, 2015

R. BANUMATHI, J.
Citation(2015) 7 SCC178

Print Page

How to clear metadata from Electronic document sent to your client or your opponent?

Most lawyers have probably heard the word “metadata” and, at minimum, know that it has something to do with their documents. But it’s vital that every law office, staff included, is aware of the risks posed by metadata, and what steps can reduce the dangers.

A popular, if slightly ambiguous definition of metadata is “data about data.” In fact, metadata is the hidden information that can be found embedded in electronic files. It may include transactional details about the document, such as author, software used, the date it was written and even edits made along the way. It occurs in many different forms and in a vast number of locations. In a Word document, for example, metadata can include tracked changes, comments, text smaller than 5 points, white text on any background and previous authors. The most potentially damaging of these can be the tracked changes or comments made in earlier versions.

Print Page

Production of electronic document in which formatt can be asked?

The Plaintiff brought a motion for the production of Word documents in native file format. The Producing Party had produced the files as non-searchable PDF’s. The Plaintiff argued the PDF’s lacked the metadata that showed who created the Word documents, revisions and when the files were printed. Crissen v. Gupta, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 159534, at *20 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 7, 2013).

The Producing Party countered that the Plaintiff did not state the form of production in their request and that they did not have to produce ESI in more than one form pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2)(E)(iii).  Crissen at *20-21.

Print Page