eDiscovery Navigator

The Power Of Choice: Massachusetts Wisely Embraces Multiple Document Format Standards To Drive Greater Competition And Innovation

The Power Of Choice: Massachusetts Wisely Embraces Multiple Document Format Standards To Drive Greater Competition And Innovation

"A 'document format' (also known as a 'file format') is a particular way to encode information for storage in a computer file.1 Numerous document formats exist for encoding and storing the same type of information in word processing, spreadsheet, presentation, and other document types. Such document formats can complement each other by offering different functionality, compete with one another when there is functionality overlap, or both. For example, the latest version of WordPerfect reportedly supports more than 60 document formats. For these reasons and those discussed below, consumers and governments benefit from the existence of multiple document formats. Yet, within the last few years, based primarily on increasing efforts by governments to adopt electronic document initiatives, and the corresponding lobbying efforts of numerous vendors trying to gain a competitive advantage by promoting their preferred standards/products, a highly charged debate has arisen regarding the wisdom of governments to select particular document formats to the exclusion of others. Nowhere has this debate been followed and scrutinized more closely than in Massachusetts."

Producing Electronically Stored Information

Producing Electronically Stored Information

By John P. Scordo and Kristine Russo Begley of Day Pitney LLP

As technology advances, the need for discovery of electronic communications and information increases and raises questions concerning the proper form of production for electronically stored information (ESI). The December 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) were designed to facilitate early communication regarding the production of ESI and to allow litigants to request specific production formats. Litigants should be aware of the various forms of production available, the issues that have arisen, and the cost and practicality of utilizing those forms.

PDF vs. TIFF

Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the production of electronically stored information ("ESI") for inspection.  Rule 34(b) allows the requesting party to specify the form or forms in which ESI is to be produced.  PDF and TIFF are the two popular forms.  Here's a brief review of what they are and why the former is better than the latter, especially in light of today's ediscovery requirements.

What is a PDF?

PDF stands for "Portable Document Format."  It is a data format used for creating (or converting), viewing, and printing any electronic document on any computer system.  Hence, "portable."  Adobe Reader is a software program for viewing and printing PDF documents.  (Click here for a free copy.)

What is a TIFF?

TIFF, or "Tagged Image File Format," is a file format for storing images on a computer.  When a paper document is scanned, the scanner's software program converts the document into electronic form and saves it as a TIFF image.  That image can only be viewed or printed with the program that created it.

PDF Is The Better Format

PDF has many advantages over TIFF, especially in light of current ediscovery practice.

• Universal compatibility
• Can be searched electronically
• Is stored at a fraction of the size of a TIFF image file
• Can be transferred and downloaded more quickly because of its smaller file size
• Looks clearer on the computer screen and in print
• Maintains original page orientation: A PDF file organizes each original page as a separate page in a PDF file, while each TIFF image file contains a single page of the original document.
• Can be set for password protection by the person who created the PDF file

Finally, and importantly, a PDF file retains all of the metadata of the original document.  This feature is particularly useful when the metadata of an ESI is required to be produced with the ESI.  (See Williams v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 230 F.R.D. 640 (D.Kan. 2005) (ruling that a party who is required to produce ESI as they are kept in the usual course of business must produce the ESI with its metadata intact).)

For issues to keep in mind when thinking about metadata, see my earlier posts here and here.