CINDY PASTIN and LANCE PASTIN, Plaintiffs, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant 2:17cv1503 United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania Filed September 18, 2018 Cercone, David S., United States District Judge Memorandum Order *1 Plaintiffs, Cindy Pastin and Lance Pastin (“Plaintiffs” or “the Pastins”) initiated this action in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania on August 4, 2016, by filing a Praecipe for Writ of Summons. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint with the state court on October 31, 2017, alleging claims of “breach of contract” (Counts I and II), “bad faith” (Count III), and “intentional infliction of emotional distress” (Count IV) related to uninsured motorist claims the Plaintiffs made with Defendant, Allstate Insurance Company (“Defendant” or “Allstate”), under a motor vehicle insurance policy (“the Insurance Policy”), arising from an accident that occurred on August 17, 2012, when Dalton Mehlmauer rear ended the Plaintiffs while they were stopped at a red light. On November 17, 2017, Allstate removed the action to this Court. Currently before the Court is a Motion to Compel Discovery filed by the Plaintiffs in which they are seeking, inter alia, certain electronically stored information (“ESI”). (Document No. 29). In their Request for Production of Documents, the Pastins requested the following: 1. Defendant’s claims file relating to [the Pastins’] claims for UM/UIM benefits whether maintained in Defendant’s field office, regional office, home office or any other office, including without limitation: a. All electronically stored information (ESI) on this case on paper and in native format and all metadata from January 2010[1] to present. Plaintiffs contend they need the metadata to be certain the information provided was not altered by Allstate prior to production. Metadata is imbedded information that describes the history, tracking, and management of an electronic document. Williams v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 230 F.R.D. 640, 647 (D. Kan. 2005). Courts generally order the production of metadata if (1) it was specifically requested in the initial document request, and (2) the producing party has not yet produced the documents in any form. Aguilar v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Div., 255 F.R.D. 350, 357 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). Conversely, “[i]f metadata is not [specifically] sought in the initial document request, and particularly if the producing party already has produced the documents in another form, courts tend to deny later requests ....” Id.; see also Romero v. Allstate Ins. Co., 271 F.R.D. 96, 106 (E.D. Pa. 2010). Allstate avers that it utilizes a proprietary claims handling system called “NextGen” as a tool to manage its claims records. See Engberg Affidavit, Allstate Exhibit A (“Engberg Aff.”) ¶ 7. Allstate created in, or uploaded to, NextGen all the information and documents related to the adjustment of Plaintiffs’ claim. Id. Allstate’s normal business practice is to store, review and maintain any claim-related documents as attachments uploaded into NextGen in the format in which they were uploaded to NextGen, whether or not that was the “native” format in which the document or information was originally created. Engberg Aff. ¶ 9. NextGen does not store, and does not allow retrieval of, metadata of ESI in a format that preserves the integrity of the metadata that was created or associated with the data upon its creation. Id. Electronic records created in NextGen are retrievable only in PDF format. Engberg Aff. ¶ 10. Allstate further avers that the ESI recorded in NextGen cannot be deleted or altered in the ordinary course of business. Engberg Aff. ¶ 11. *2 Pursuant to Rule 34(b)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a request for production of documents “may specify the form or forms in which electronically stored information is to be produced.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1)(C). Under Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(iii), however, “[a] party need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(iii). Here, Plaintiffs specified several forms, requesting all ESI “on paper and in native format and all metadata.” (emphasis added). Allstate contends that it has produced the relevant, non-privileged ESI responsive to Plaintiffs’ requests in readable, PDF format, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2)(E). Allstate Response ¶ 1. Allstate further maintains that production of the claim file in “native format” or with “metadata” is not feasible, and the production of any materials successfully retrieved would merely duplicate materials already produced in discovery. Id. Rule 26(b)(2)(C) allows a court to limit discovery permitted under the Rules where the discovery sought “can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive” and when “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C); see also Covad Communcn’s Co. v. Revonet, Inc., 267 F.R.D. 14, 20 (D.D.C. 2010) (holding that “it is not in the interest of judicial expediency to send defendant’s counsel on what may be a futile task to find the origins of hard copy documents that have already been produced in a usable format”). The only reason given by Plaintiffs for the request that the ESI be in metadata form is to prove that Allstate did not alter the claim file prior to production. This Court will not require that Allstate redo a burdensome document production in metadata form, that may or may not be successful, and will be duplicative of what has already been produced in PDF format, solely to satisfy Plaintiffs’ paranoia. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel production of Allstate’s claim file in native format and all metadata from January 2010 to present will be denied. Plaintiffs also request in their motion, “[ESI] for the tortfeasor, Dalton Mehlmauer, his father, Benjamin Mehlmauer, and his mother, Amy Mehlmauer from January 2010 to present.” The Court, however, can find no such request in Plaintiffs’ original Request for Production of Documents issued to Allstate. The Court finds no relevance to Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim against Allstate and any ESI for the Mehlmauers. Such request, therefore, will be denied. In their motion, Plaintiffs request “all telephone recordings from Lance Pastin, Cindy Pastin, Dalton Mehlmauer, Benjamin Mehlmauer, and Amy Mehlmauer from January 2010 to present.” Plaintiffs’ Motion p.3, item (d) (Item 1(c) on Plaintiffs’ Request for Production of Documents). Plaintiffs fail to indicate the relevance of such telephone calls to its action against Allstate. Moreover, Allstate indicates that it does not have any such recordings in its possession. Such request will be denied. Plaintiffs ask the Court to compel Allstate to produce “all pictures and video not only what’s limited to just UIM claim.” Plaintiffs’ Motion p.3, item (e). Allstate avers that it has produced all pictures contained in its claim file relating to the UIM claim. Plaintiffs fail to set forth the relevance of any pictures and video not related to the UIM claim. The motion with regard to such pictures and video will be denied. Plaintiffs further request “all video media commercials, advertisements Allstate has used from 2010 to present. Furthermore[,] the tortfeasor and his father and mother have records from 2010 and may have been influenced by these Allstate ads as well as the plaintiffs being influenced by these media commercials.” Whether Plaintiffs, or anyone else, was influenced by commercials to purchase insurance from Allstate is not relevant to Plaintiff’s claims in this matter. The motion to compel production of such materials will be denied. *3 With regard to all responsive documents to which Allstate claims a privilege, Allstate shall produce a privilege log detailing with sufficient specificity any material that would be discoverable but for the claim of a valid privilege or protection. Plaintiffs also request Allstate’s claims manual and training materials. Defendant objects on the grounds that these requests, inter alia, are “overly broad and unreasonably burdensome” and that such materials are “trade secrets.” Courts in this Circuit have determined that information contained in such manuals is relevant because the manuals contain instructions concerning procedures used by insurance company employees in handling UIM claims, like Plaintiffs’ claims herein. Though departures from established standards in handling a UIM claim would not alone establish bad faith, such information “is probative evidence for plaintiff to demonstrate bad faith.” See Kaufman v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18530 *4-5 (E.D.Pa. Nov. 12, 1997) (in bad faith case, insurer ordered to produce information in claims manuals concerning procedures used by insurer’s employees in handling UIM claims). See also Robertson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2991, *18-19 (E.D. Pa. March 10, 1999). The Court, therefore, finds that claims manuals are discoverable, but only the portions relevant to processing the claim in question. Accordingly, Allstate is ordered to produce portions of its claims manuals that relate to the processing of Plaintiffs’ UIM claim. Plaintiffs shall be ordered to sign a confidentiality agreement prepared by Allstate prior to production of such portions of the claims manuals. Accordingly, Order of court AND NOW, this 18th day of September, 2018, upon consideration of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery (Document No. 29), and Defendant’s response thereto, in accordance with the accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is granted in part and denied in part. With regard to Plaintiffs request for Allstate’s claims manuals, the motion is GRANTED. On or before October 9, 2018, Allstate shall produce portions of its claims manuals that relate to the processing of Plaintiffs’ UIM claim. Plaintiffs shall sign a confidentiality agreement prepared by Allstate prior to production of such portions of the claims manuals. In all other aspects, the motion is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before October 9, 2018, Allstate shall produce to Plaintiffs, with a copy to this Court, a privilege log detailing with sufficient specificity any material that would be discoverable but for the claim of a valid privilege. Footnotes [1] Plaintiffs’ have not explained why they requested ESI from January 2010 when the accident occurred in August of 2012.