The term “native format” has been frequently used in cases. See, e.g.,
Aguilar v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Div. of U.S. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 255 F.R.D. 350, 353 n. 4 (S.D.N.Y.2008) (stating that “native format” is the “default format of a file,” access to which is “typically provided through the software program on which it was created”); Autotech Technologies Ltd. Partnership v. Automationdirect.com, Inc., 248 F.R.D. 556, 557 (N.D.Ill.2008) (defining “native format” as “the way [the document] is stored and used in the normal course of business”); Lorraine v. Markel American Ins. Co., 241 F.R.D. 534, 547 (D.Md.2007) (stating that native format “includes the metadata for the electronic document”). Likewise, although Bryan A. Garner has yet to define “native format,” the term is frequently used in secondary materials that are readily available and familiar to attorneys. See
23 Am.Jur.2d Depositions and Discovery § 156 (May 2009) (stating that “[w]hen a party is ordered to disclose electronic documents as they are maintained in ordinary course of business, i.e. as ‘active file’ or in ‘native format,’ producing party should produce electronic documents with their metadata intact”); Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, 8A Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 2219 (3d ed.2009) (stating that “electronically stored information with metadata and embedded data intact may be said to be in ‘native format’ “ and stating, in reference to Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b), that “[t]he ‘ordinarily maintained’ form may often be ‘native format’ ”); Adam I. Cohen & David J. Lender, Electronic Discovery Law & Practice
§ 2.06[B] (2009 Supp.) (stating, under the section heading “Native Format,” that “requesting parties are often insisting on production of electronically stored information in native format and their wishes are being granted by courts”); Barbara J. Rothstein, Ronald J. Hedges & Elizabeth C. Wiggins, Managing Discovery in Electronic Information: A Pocket Guide for Judges
23-24 (2007) (stating that “[c]omputer systems commonly identify files by a naming convention that denotes the native format”); Fed. Jud. Ctr., Manual for Complex Litigation § 11.446 (4th ed.2004) (stating that “[d]ynamic data may need to be produced in native format, or in a modified format in which the integrity of the data can be maintained while the data can be manipulated for analysis”); Kenneth J. Withers, Electronically Stored Information: The December 2006 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 7 Sedona Conf. J. 1, 13 (Fall 2006) (discussing “native format” extensively and stating “[t]he files in native formats are dynamic, and behave the way they do in the active business environment”); see generally
J. Michael Rediker, E-mail and Document Production in Native Format,
767 Prac. Law. Inst. 195 (Nov.2007). Thus, this Court concludes that the request was unambiguous.