Mallary v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• acknowledging that producing documents in native format “will provide [parties] with the metadata necessary to identify the provenance of each document and put it into its proper context[.]”
• “Rule 34 is generally designed to facilitate discovery of relevant information by preventing attempts to hide a needle in a haystack by mingling responsive documents with large numbers of nonresponsive documents.”
• “[I]t is clear that parties are entitled under the 9 Federal Rules to rationally organized productions so that they may readily identify 10 documents, including ESI, that are responsive to their production requests.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).