Shark Week, er, eDiscovery Case Week, concludes today! In Moore v. Garnand, No. CV 19-00290 TUC RM (MAA) (D. Ariz. July 3, 2024), Arizona Magistrate Judge Michael A. Ambri granted the plaintiffs’ motion in part, ruling that photographs with metadata must be produced after they previously were produced without metadata.
Case Background
In this case involving claims that the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights were violated when the defendants obtained and executed two search warrants in connection with an arson investigation, the defendants disclosed several hundred photographs that were taken during those searches. During discovery, plaintiffs learned that these photographs were originally stored in the Tucson Police Department computer system and each image had metadata associated with it that was not included in the photographs that were originally disclosed to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs subsequently filed the pending motion to compel the defendants to disclose this metadata, believing the metadata would contain date and time information for the photographs that would help them reconstruct the sequence of events taken by the Tucson Police Department during their investigation, which is information “the witnesses have forgotten.”
Plaintiffs further argued that this metadata should have been disclosed at the beginning of the case because this action was part of the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project (MIDP), which requires each party to disclose, among other things, electronically stored information. Many of the photographs were apparently originally disclosed as a result of a separate state civil action that the Moores brought pursuant to the Arizona Public Records Act.
Judge’s Ruling
In analyzing the request, Judge Ambri stated: “It appears that the photographs and their metadata should have been part of the defendants’ initial discovery disclosure”, while also footnoting that “Discovery in this case was originally limited by the law enforcement investigatory privilege. Doc. 74. This privilege was later abrogated by the court, at which point the defendants should have made an unredacted “initial” discovery disclosure as required by the MIDP and Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a), if they had not already done so.”
Judge Ambri noted defendants’ arguments as follows: “The defendants argue that the Moores should have known that the photographs originally contained metadata and their failure to raise the issue before now must be a ‘strategic decision.’…The defendants do not opine, however, on what advantage the Moores might hope to gain by this alleged ‘strategic decision.’…The defendants further argue that the metadata is not necessary to divine the sequence of events that took place when the defendants executed their search warrants. ‘Placards were filled out by the police officers who took the PDF Photographs to indicate the beginning time for the taking of every specific group of photographs.’…Photos of the placards presumably were disclosed to the Moores…The court does not agree that these placards are a good substitute for the metadata. It appears that these placards will supply some information about where and when each group of photographs was taken, but it does not appear that they will reveal the actual sequence of events that took place when the Tucson Police Department conducted their investigation.”
Judge Ambri stated, in granting the request for photographs with metadata: “The metadata appears to be relevant and should not be too difficult to retrieve assuming the Moores are correct and the metadata is attached to the images stored in the Tucson Police Department computer system. The motion to compel as it relates to these photographs will be granted.” However, he denied the rest of the motion, including the plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions, finding that “sanctions are not appropriate.”
So, what do you think? Are you surprised that defendants didn’t produce the photographs with metadata in the first place? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.
Case opinion link courtesy of eDiscovery Assistant, an Affinity partner of eDiscovery Today.
Disclaimer: The views represented herein are exclusively the views of the author, and do not necessarily represent the views held by my employer, my partners or my clients. eDiscovery Today is made available solely for educational purposes to provide general information about general eDiscovery principles and not to provide specific legal advice applicable to any particular circumstance. eDiscovery Today should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a lawyer you have retained and who has agreed to represent you.