Opinion ID: 181032
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Manner in Which the Government Produced Discovery

Text: The defendants' first argument is that the district court erroneously permitted the government to produce titanic amounts of electronic discovery in formats that were simultaneously disorganized and unsearchable. Specifically, the defendants assert that the electronic images of the Berkeley computers and the discs of potential trial exhibits were difficult to search. The defendants further contend that the government's failure to supplement the discovery materials with indices was prejudicial to the preparation of an adequate defense. [25] In making this argument, the defendants lean heavily on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2)(E)(i), which requires a party to produce [discovery materials] as they are kept in the usual course of business or [to] organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request. The defendants acknowledge that there is no corresponding provision in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16, which governs criminal discovery, but they argue that due process mandates enforcement of the civil rule in the criminal context. A district court's decision on a discovery matter is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Gray, 521 F.3d 514, 529 (6th Cir.2008) (citing United States v. $174,206.00 in U.S. Currency, 320 F.3d 658, 663 (6th Cir.2003)); see United States v. Maples, 60 F.3d 244, 246 (6th Cir.1995) (It is well settled that a district court has considerable discretion under Rule 16....). As an initial matter, it must be noted that the defendants cite scant authority suggesting that a district court must order the government to produce electronic discovery in a particular fashion. [26] Furthermore, it bears noting that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16, which governs discovery in criminal cases, is entirely silent on the issue of the form that discovery must take; it contains no indication that documents must be organized or indexed. Thus, if we are to find that the district court abused its discretion, we must do so despite a pronounced dearth of precedent suggesting that the district court was wrong. There are a number of factors that counsel against such a finding. First, the overwhelming majority of the discovery at issue was taken directly from Berkeley's computers, which means the defendants had ready access to that information. It also means that the defendants had access to the documents as they [were] kept in the usual course of business. Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2)(E)(i). Thus, any difficulty that the defendants had in accessing the copies is arguably immaterial. [27] Furthermore, there is reason to believe that the defendants were experiencing little difficulty in accessing the contents of the electronic discovery. Though the defendants claim that they were provided with data that had been rendered in unsearchable formats, they were citing discovery material to the district court in their motions, leading the district court to observe that the [d]efendants' motion[s] demonstrate[d] [that] they [were] capably navigating discovery. Additionally, at the Kastigar -like hearing held before the district court, an expert witness who testified for the defense indicated that, with the use of certain software, he could perform very quick and thorough searches of the electronic discovery. Consequently, it does not appear that the discovery materials were nearly as unsearchable as the defense purports. Lastly, it should be observed that the government did provide the defense with something of a guide to the electronic discovery. In response to the defense's discovery request, the government furnished the defendants with a detailed room-by-room inventory of all items seized from the company, including a listing of the various computers that were imaged. Appellee's Br. at 127. That listing surely offered the defendants some aid in identifying and marshaling the documents relevant to the litigation. Accordingly, we decline to hold that the district court abused its discretion in failing to order the government to produce discovery in a different form.