{"id":361,"date":"2007-09-28T06:48:12","date_gmt":"2007-09-28T11:48:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.cavanaghwilliams.com\/blawg\/?p=361"},"modified":"2007-09-28T06:48:12","modified_gmt":"2007-09-28T11:48:12","slug":"master-orders-plaintiff-to-produce-identical-copy-of-hard-drive-from-which-some-of-its-productions-had-been-taken","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.cavanagh.ca\/blog\/?p=361","title":{"rendered":"Master Orders Plaintiff to Produce Identical Copy of Hard Drive From Which Some of Its Productions Had Been Taken"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong><em><a href=\"http:\/\/www.canlii.org\/en\/on\/onsc\/doc\/2007\/2007canlii39610\/2007canlii39610.pdf\">Hummingbird v. Mustafa et al.<\/a> <\/em><\/strong>involved some interesting issues in the evolving law of &#8220;e-discovery&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>The defendants asked the court to order production of the hard drive of a computer that the defendant Mustafa had used while in the employ of the plaintiff Hummingbird. Some of Hummingbird&#8217;s productions in the litigation had come from that hard drive.<\/p>\n<p>Master Sproat granted the order, noting that the definition of &#8220;document&#8221; in subrule 30.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure was broad enough to include the hard drive itself. The Master considered the request for production of the hard drive to be &#8220;tantamount to a request to review an original of a production, which is permitted by rule 30.04 of the Rules&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>Other factors that the Master thought were significant included:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Having an original of the hard drive would enable the defendants to inspect the documents without disclosing to the plaintiff what they were examining or their strategy;<\/li>\n<li>With the hard drive, the defendants could conduct tests to see if the drive had been altered in any way;<\/li>\n<li>The cost of redacting non-relevant documents would be high and the exercise time-consuming, making it more efficient to have the hard drive itself produced. There was no evidence in this case to suggest that non-relevant documents on the drive were particularly sensitive;<\/li>\n<li>However, should Hummingbird wish to redact documents, it could do so, at its own expense;<\/li>\n<li>Once a document had been determined to be relevant, the &#8220;metadata&#8221; in relation to that document should also be produced. (&#8220;Metadata&#8221; is information about a document that does not appear on the document itself, but is stored on the computer. Examples are: the date and time the document was created, by whom, when the file was last accessed, when it was last printed, etc.)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The order that metadata be produced is an interesting one. If this order is valid in principle, why would a party not have to produce metadata in relation to <em>all <\/em>relevant electronic documents, in <em>every<\/em> case?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Hummingbird v. Mustafa et al. involved some interesting issues in the evolving law of &#8220;e-discovery&#8221;. The defendants asked the court to order production of the hard drive of a computer that the defendant Mustafa had used while in the employ &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cavanagh.ca\/blog\/?p=361\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[32,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-361","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-discovery","category-practice-and-procedure"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cavanagh.ca\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/361","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cavanagh.ca\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cavanagh.ca\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cavanagh.ca\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cavanagh.ca\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=361"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.cavanagh.ca\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/361\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.cavanagh.ca\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=361"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cavanagh.ca\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=361"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.cavanagh.ca\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=361"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}