Producing native files as PDF’s without metadata rarely ends well for the producing party. Blevins-Clark v. Beacon Cmtys., LLC, is a tale of how a party producing native files as PDFs is not in a reasonably usable form or how ESI is ordinarily maintained.
Here is what happened: The producing party produced their electronically stored information (ESI) as PDFs without metadata. The producing party had no explanation for the court on why they produced ESI in this format, besides claiming the requesting party did it too. Blevins-Clark v. Beacon Cmtys., LLC, No. 5:22-CV-00281-GFVT-MAS, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189822, at *20 (E.D. Ky. Sep. 26, 2025).
U.S. District Court Judge Matthew A. Stinnett stated the dispute before the court was the producing party’s form of production, not complaining that the requesting party also produced PDFs in a different production. Judge Stinnett noted that the producing party could make the request for ESI in a different format. Id.
The requesting party did not state the form of production in their request for production. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 34 states that where, "a request does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, a party must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms." Blevins-Clark, at *20-21, citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(ii) and (ii).
Judge Stinnett explained that it is “reasonable to interpret” the term “kept in the ordinary court of business” to mean ESI in its native format. Id., citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E).
Judge Stinnett described, “producing documents without the underlying metadata is the equivalent of manufacturing a car without an engine—a shell without much use." Blevins-Clark, *20-21, citing In re Onglyza (Saxagliptin) and Kombiglyze XR (Saxagliptin and Metformin) Products Liability Litigation, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191447, at *2 (E.D. Ky., Nov. 5, 2019).
The court held that the PDF production was “ incomplete without the metadata necessary to understand the documents produced.” Blevins-Clark, *21. Moreover, there was no argument that producing the metadata was somehow unduly burdensome.
The producing party was ordered to produce ESI in a reasonably usable format that included the metadata. Id.
Logikcull Insight
Here is a truth to eDiscovery: metadata is “an integral part" to ESI. Literally. Not producing metadata is like producing a blank piece of paper and calling it a contract. The key information is missing that can authenticate a record at trial, so an attorney knows who created the ESI, when it was generated, the date any changes were made to it, and other historical information about the ESI.
There is also a practical fact about metadata: it is free document review. In the old days of first pass review, an attorney would need to look at the four corners of a document to identify the date, who sent the record, who it was sent to, and any other objective information from the face of the document.
Metadata is searchable. An attorney can construct searches for emails between specific individuals, look for spreadsheets created on a specific day, or when a record was printed.
These factual questions are the heart of a lawsuit for knowing when specific events happened, which can then be used by a lawyer for drafting deposition questions or motion practice. For example, when did a plaintiff first learn of a claimed construction defect that would start the statute of limitations? The timing of a text message sent to a family member would show they were on notice of a defect, and the clock started ticking for them to bring a lawsuit.
Metadata eliminates the need for all of the grunt work of document review. That work is best left in the 1990s when lawyers were reviewing faxes instead of email.
The moral of the story is to state the form of production in your requests for production and follow up with a meet and confer if ESI is produced without metadata.
