Darlene Hughes, on her own behalf and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Family Life Care, Inc. a Florida Corporation, Defendant Case No. 1:15cv7-MW/GRJ Signed July 17, 2015 Walker, Mark E., United States District Judge ORDER ON MOTION COMPEL DISCOVERY *1 This is an action under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff moved to compel better responses to a request for production of documents. Defendant then provided a better response. A related dispute arose about the method of producing responsive documents which are electronically stored. This order grants the motion to compel, sets procedures for the production of the electronically stored documents, and awards attorney's fees in amount to be determined later. BACKGROUND On February 20, 2015, Plaintiff sought production of 74 categories of documents from Defendant under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. ECF Nos. 15, 15-1. On March 26, 2015, Defendant responded with several hundred pages of documents and a one-paragraph explanation that they were produced “as kept in the ordinary course of Defendant's business.” ECF No. 15-2. On May 8, 2015, Plaintiff's counsel asked about Plaintiff's time sheets, which Defendant had not previously produced. Defendant provided some but not all time sheets for the previous three years. On May 15, 2015, Plaintiff moved to compel a better response to her request for production. ECF No. 15. Specifically, she wanted Defendant to produce all responsive documents without objections and identify which request relates to which documents. She also asked for attorney's fees. Two days after Plaintiff moved to compel, Defendant served an amended response to the request for production. The amended response has 74 numbered paragraphs identifying which documents relate to which request, explaining that Defendant has no documents for certain categories, and agreeing to produce other documents. ECF No. 18-1. Defendant asserts that the amended response complies with Rule 34. In response to the motion, Defendant also included a document indicating that it produced another 40 pages of responsive documents. ECF No. 18-2. But for requests 18, 19, 52, 54, and 55, Defendant said the responsive records would be produced “as they are kept in the usual course of business.” See, e.g., ECF No. 18-1 ¶¶18, 19, 52, 54, 55. This Court directed Plaintiff to file a reply indicating what discovery disputes asserted in the motion went unresolved. ECF No. 22. According to Plaintiff's reply, some of the responsive documents are located on Defendant's computers at four different offices across North Florida. Defendant has conditioned Plaintiff's access to these computers; that Defendant's personnel will operate the computer while allowing Plaintiff to view the material. Plaintiff now asks for either access to Defendant's computers by her own operation or Defendant's production of the responsive documents in PDF format. PRODUCTION This Court will address the motion to compel in two parts. First, Rule 34(b)(2)(B) requires that “[f]or each item or category, the response must either state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested or state an objection to the request, including the reasons.” Defendant's responses to the request for production made before the motion did not comply with this requirement. Defendant must produce any responsive documents which have not already been produced. *2 Second, the rules of procedure are meant “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (emphasis added). Rule 34(b)(2)(E) authorizes a court to set procedures for the production of electronically stored information such as documents maintained solely on a computer. It seems that Defendant's personnel will inevitably be part of the production, either through showing Plaintiff the documents on the computer and printing them or by Defendant itself reducing them to a transferrable format such as PDF. There is no showing here that one is less burdensome than the other to Defendant, or that the latter option is impossible or even impracticable. The former option is obviously more burdensome to Plaintiff.[1] This Court will exercise its discretion and order Defendant to produce documents responsive to Requests for Production 18, 19, 52, 54, and 55 in PDF or similar format within 14 days of the date of this order.[2] FEES Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A), the party or attorney whose conduct necessitated a discovery motion “must” be ordered to pay the reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees, unless the moving party filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain the discovery without court action, or the opposing party's position was “substantially justified,” or “other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Unless one of these conditions is met, an award of sanctions is “mandatory.” Devaney v. Cont'l Am. Ins. Co., 989 F.2d 1154, 1162 (11th Cir. 1993). Under the circumstances of this case, an award is “mandatory.” This is because Defendant did not comply with Rule 34(b)(2)(B). The amount of fees will be determined at the conclusion of the case. CONCLUSION For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The motion to compel, ECF No. 15, is GRANTED. 2. Within 14 days of the date of this order, Defendant must produce any documents responsive to Plaintiff's request for production which have not already been produced. In particular, Defendant must produce to Plaintiff documents responsive to Requests for Production 18, 19, 52, 54, and 55 in PDF or similar format. 3. The amount of attorney's fees will be determined at a later date and set by separate order. SO ORDERED on July 17, 2015. Footnotes [1] This Court takes judicial notice that the driving distance from Gainesville to Inverness to Live Oak to Orange Park to Gainesville, Florida (the path that Plaintiff's counsel might take to inspect those documents) is roughly 360 miles. [2] In the reply Plaintiff quotes an email from Defendant's counsel suggesting that Defendant's computer records contain patient health care data. If necessary, the parties should ask for an appropriate protective order.