Williams v. Sprint/United Management Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• providing that “data compilations” must be “translated, if necessary, by the respondent through detection devices into reasonably usable form”
• determining that metadata contained in the defendant's electronic spreadsheet documents was discoverable to the extent it was relevant
• discussing that courts reference the Sedona Conference for guidance on discovery production issues
• ordering production of Excel spreadsheets with metadata even though no request had been made initially because producing party should reasonably have known that metadata was relevant
• discussing the evolving state of the law concerning discovery of electronic documents and associated metadata in litigation
• refusing to order a party to produce metadata when “[t]here was no request for metadata . . . until recently-after production”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

24 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• Lorraine v. Markel American Insurance
  D. Maryland· 2007-05-04· cited 113×
• in Re State Farm Lloyds
  Texas Supreme Court· 2017-05-26· cited 97×
• O'NEILL v. City of Shoreline
  Washington Supreme Court· 2010-10-07· cited 69×
• Aguilar v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Division of United States Department of Homeland Security
  S.D. New York· 2008-11-21· cited 45×
• United States ex rel. Carter v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc.
  S.D. New York· 2015-02-20· cited 24×
• Lake v. City of Phoenix
  Arizona Supreme Court· 2009-10-29· cited 23×
• John B. v. Goetz
  M.D. Tennessee· 2010-01-28· cited 22×
• Romero v. Allstate Insurance
  E.D. Pennsylvania· 2010-10-21· cited 22×
• Wyeth v. Impax Laboratories, Inc.
  D. Delaware· 2006-10-26· cited 18×
• In Re Honza
  Tex. App. Ct., 10th Dist. (Waco)· 2008-01-02· cited 17×
• O'Neill v. City of Shoreline
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2008-07-21· cited 17×
• Anderson Living Trust v. WPX Energy Production, LLC
  D. New Mexico· 2014-03-06· cited 17×
• Dahl v. Bain Capital Partners, LLC
  D. Massachusetts· 2009-06-22· cited 12×
• In re Seroquel Products Liability Litigation
  M.D. Florida· 2007-08-21· cited 12×
• D'Onofrio v. SFX Sports Group, Inc.
  District of Columbia· 2008-01-23· cited 11×
• Autotech Technologies LP v. Automationdirect.Com, Inc.
  N.D. Illinois· 2008-04-02· cited 7×
• Maese v. Davis County
  Court of Appeals of Utah· 2012-02-24· cited 5×
• Lake v. City of Phoenix
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2009-01-13· cited 4×
• Helget v. City of Hays
  D. Kansas· 2014-06-25· cited 4×
• De Technologies, Inc. v. Dell Inc.
  W.D. Virginia· 2006-12-04· cited 3×

Cites

4 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Employer's Reinsurance Corp. v. Clarendon National Insurance
  D. Kansas· 2003-03-04· cited 53×
• McPeek v. Ashcroft
  District of Columbia· 2001-08-01· cited 26×
• Public Citizen,appellees v. John Carlin, Archivist of the United States,appellants
  D.C. Circuit· 1999-08-06· cited 25×
• McPeek v. Ashcroft
  District of Columbia· 2003-01-09· cited 8×

Other cases named Williams v. Sprint/United Management Co.

5 other CourtListener records share this case name.

• Williams v. Sprint/united Management Co.
  D. Kansas· 2004-07-01· cited 19×
• Williams v. Sprint/United Management Co.
  D. Kansas· 2006-12-08· cited 17×
• Williams v. Sprint/United Management Co.
  D. Kansas· 2006-11-09· cited 11×
• Williams v. Sprint/United Management Co.
  D. Kansas· 2006-03-21· cited 9×
• Williams v. Sprint/United Management Co.
  D. Kansas· 2005-11-01· cited 1×