In the Synchromotive v. Electro Tech litigation, Kate Sandberg's ...

[formula1]

In the Synchromotive v. Electro Tech litigation, Kate Sandberg's litigation team has received a request for production of all electronic documents related to the development of the Accelerex device. Interestingly, Synchromotive did not specify what format the documents must be in when produced to the Synchromotive team. Under the federal rules, what formats may Kate's team use? What formats would give Electro Tech the greatest protection?
 
  What will be an ideal response?

Question 2

__________________ refers to a numbering protocol named after the mechanical device.
 
  Fill in the blank(s) with correct word

[IAPPLET]

Answer to Question 1

If no format is requested, Rule 34 states that unless an objection is raised and sustained by the court, the documents may be delivered in the form in which they are kept in the usual course of business or in another reasonably usable form. This rule gives Kate's team very broad options for producing the documents. If they are produced in native format, the documents may include metadata. The metadata could contain significant information about who created each document, what changes were made, and when. Case law suggests that documents need not include the metadata. It may be wise for Kate's team to convert the files to a graphic image format, such as PDFs or TIFFs. In that format, the documents will be free of the metadata. Of these, the TIFF format is probably the most desirable because it cannot be altered in any way by the plaintiffs. In this format, they can also redact specific content that contains the client's proprietary information or trade secrets, or any privileged attorney-client communications.

Answer to Question 2

bates numbering