In EEOC v. Alto Ingredients, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-01269-JEH-RLH (C.D. Ill. Jan. 9, 2026), Illinois Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Hanna ruled (among other rulings) that “[s]ince the EEOC’s original request made no mention of metadata, Alto’s only obligation under Rule 34 is to produce responsive documents in their native form, as they are kept in the usual course of business”, not all metadata associated with electronic documents.

Case Discussion and Judge’s Ruling

In this case involving claims of unlawful termination of a disabled a Navy veteran in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Judge Hanna addressed disputes related to document requests from the EEOC, as well as a form of production dispute.

The first dispute centered on Request for Production No. 9, which Judge Hanna stated: “stretches the boundaries of even the most liberal interpretation of today’s federal discovery regime”. He added that it – “while nearly a paragraph in length—can be summarized as follows: all documents and information related to every Alto employee (past or present) identified in the parties’ initial disclosures…The request clarifies that it includes the employees’ medical records, leave records, rate of pay, and employment applications.” Judge Hanna added: “On its face, this request is strikingly broad: It would reach hundreds (or, more likely, thousands) of documents that have nothing to do with this case.”

While Alto argued that the motion was procedurally defective for failure to sufficiently meet and confer under Rule 37. Judge Hanna disagreed, noting that the parties had in fact met and conferred and that hearings had been held. Accordingly, Judge Hanna concluded that “Rule 37’s meet and confer requirement has been satisfied”. After the EEOC clarified that it sought only “the personnel files of decision-makers” involved in Butcher’s termination and excluded “medical records, financial information, or information about family members”, Judge Hanna found this narrowed request reasonable, recognizing that “plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases” are generally entitled “to discover the personnel files of decision makers”.

Judge Hanna therefore ordered production of the “personnel files of decisionmakers involved in the termination,” while emphasizing that not every potential witness qualifies as a decisionmaker. Because the record was unclear as to who ultimately made the termination decision, Judge Hanna directed the parties themselves to determine which individuals actually participated in the decision, noting that mere interaction with or supervision of Butcher would not suffice.

The second request sought all documents in Alto’s possession that “refer or relate” to Mark Butcher – the Navy veteran who was terminated. Judge Hanna stated: “The EEOC’s second request is without a doubt proper… Because Butcher’s employment with Alto—and Alto’s reason for terminating him—are at the heart of this case, the documents sought by the request are relevant to the EEOC’s claims…Nor is the EEOC’s request disproportionate to the needs of the case: Alto employed Butcher for less than four months, and the Court sees no reason why Alto would have difficulty identifying and producing documents related to Butcher that were created during that relatively short period.”

While Judge Hanna noting that “Alto doesn’t seem to dispute this”, the dispute arose after a deposition revealed an email exchange concerning Butcher’s termination that had not been produced. Although Alto later produced the emails, the oversight undermined the EEOC’s confidence in Alto’s search efforts. So, the EEOC sought a court order directing Alto to (1) “conduct a prompt and thorough search for all responsive documents”; (2) “explain its search methodology”; and (3) “produce all documents in full compliance with Rule 34 and the EEOC’s requests.” In response to that request, Judge Hanna stated: “Given the obvious relevance of the EEOC’s discovery request, the Court finds that such an order would be appropriate.”

Judge Hanna also stated regarding the format of production: “In ordering Alto to certify its compliance with the EEOC’s discovery request, the Court emphasizes that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2)(E) requires Alto to ‘produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business.’ The EEOC reads Rule 34 to implicitly require the production of all metadata associated with electronic documents. Not so. Courts instead adhere to a ‘modest legal presumption in most cases that the producing party need not take special efforts to preserve or produce metadata.’…Since the EEOC’s original request made no mention of metadata, Alto’s only obligation under Rule 34 is to produce responsive documents in their native form, as they are kept in the usual course of business.”

So, what do you think? Did the EEOC drop the ball with no mention of metadata in its request? Please share any comments you might have or if you’d like to know more about a particular topic.

Case opinion link courtesy of Minerva26, 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.