NATALIE PETRONGOLA, Plaintiff, v. ROTHMAN NATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES ORGANIZATION, LLC et al., Defendants and related cases CIVIL ACTION No. 23-734, CIVIL ACTION No. 23-861, CIVIL ACTION No. 23-1049, CIVIL ACTION No. 23-1553, CIVIL ACTION No. 23-1597 United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania Filed June 20, 2025 Rohn, James J., Special Master REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF SPECIAL MASTER JAMES J. ROHN, ESQ. I. INTRODUCTION Since the Special Master was appointed in this employment discrimination case, the parties worked to resolve their discovery disputes informally and by agreement. See, e.g., Doc. Nos. 51, 54, 58.[1] The parties, however, have now reached a point where a dispute over text message metadata requires a formal Report and Recommendation. In short, the Plaintiffs have produced text messages in PDF form. The metadata associated with the production are the PDFs' metadata and not the metadata associated with each individual text message. In their Motion to Compel Text Messages and Metadata (Doc. 59), Defendants seek to compel the Plaintiffs to produce text messages in Excel or CSV output format with certain metadata fields. For the reasons set forth below, the Special Master recommends that the Court deny the Motion to Compel.[2] II. BACKGROUND These employment discrimination cases allege sex discrimination and retaliation. (Doc. 1.) The Plaintiffs were employees of the Defendant entities. They allege that they complained to human resources about a corporate officer's alleged discrimination against women. A few months after the report, all five Plaintiffs were terminated. Each Plaintiff's Complaint asserts three counts for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”); the Pennsylvania Human Rights Act (“PHRA”); and the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance (“PFPO”). The text messages at issue were requested by subpoena dated July 11, 2024. (Doc. 62-2, at 9-12.) The Defendants' subpoena did not request a specific format type for the production of the “phone records, text messages, emails and other communications.” Id. The Plaintiffs began producing text messages by October 2024 in PDF format. Id. at 3. The Court appointed the Special Master on November 25, 2024 “to supervise [a then-pending] discovery dispute (Doc. Nos. 28-30, 33, 37-40), any future discovery dispute, and any pending or future pretrial motions designated by the Court to be supervised by the Special Master.” (Doc. 46.) Through a series of informal submissions and conferences, the parties were able to resolve most of their differences to press forward with fact discovery to be completed by an extended deadline of July 11, 2025. (Doc. 55, 56.) The production of text messages was discussed frequently during the parties' conferences with the Special Master. Initially, there appeared to be a technical formatting issue between the documents as produced by Plaintiffs and as received by Defendants. To address this issue, the parties agreed that “counsel or their respective technical designees will communicate to attempt to resolve the apparent discrepancy between the format of the documents as produced by the Plaintiff and as received by the Defendants.” (Doc. 50, ¶ 4.) In the parties' February 3, 2025 Joint Status Report, the Defendants noted that limited metadata was available and, “[w]hile there are headers for additional data, the corresponding fields are blank, which suggests that this information is not available in the system.” (Doc. 52, at 7.) At that time, the Defendants contended that the iMazing program used for the Plaintiffs' productions “is not highly regarded in forensic analysis and shows that the collection was self-conducted rather than performed by a forensic company.” (Doc. 52, at 7.) During these January and February 2025 conferences, the Defendants did not raise an issue specific to PDF format. After a conference, the Special Master included in a February 4, 2025 letter confirming the outcome of the conference: “The parties agreed that metadata must be produced as provided in the Joint Discovery Plan (Doc. # 16) and Judge Slomsky's Order Governing Electronic Discovery. As previously discussed and agreed, the Plaintiffs will continue to produce text messages in a compliant format, along with privilege logs when needed. However, the Plaintiffs need not perform a forensic examination of their cell phones at this time.” (Doc. 54, ¶ 5). From there, the parties returned to the Special Master for further assistance with the post-termination time period of the Plaintiff's text message production, deposition scheduling, and redaction issues, among others. The parties agreed to work together on scheduling depositions such that fact discovery would be complete by an extended deadline of July 11, 2025. (Doc. 58, ¶ 3.) The parties agreed to limit the time period for searches of post-termination text messages to 18-months post-termination. Id. ¶ 2. Plaintiff Aleardi's text message production was to be completed by March 24, 2025, while each other Plaintiff's text messages were to be produced at least 2 weeks prior to their scheduled depositions. Id. ¶ 4. The text message productions were ongoing at that time, but the Defendants did not specifically raise any issues with the PDF format used up to that point. The Defendants first raised the PDF format issue in a letter dated May 20, 2025. (Doc. 59-1, at 6.) As the Defendants explained, “[t]hese PDF documents capture the metadata pertaining to the production version, which is to say, the metadata pertains to the PDF version itself. The Plaintiffs' production documents do not capture the metadata associated with the original text message.” Id. at 6. The Defendants contend that they are limited in their ability to analyze and understand the text messages, and they attached a “preliminary” expert report exceeding 50 pages. (Doc. 59-1, at 8, 44-117.) In response, the Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants never raised the issue with the production format dating back to October 2024. (Doc. 62-2, at 3.) Additionally, the Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants have not explained why they need the metadata beyond what is on the face of the PDFs. Id. III. THE SPECIAL MASTER'S ANALYSIS A. Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Opposition After the parties' extensive exchanges of letters and emails and their conferences with the Special Master, it became apparent to the Special Master that an informal resolution was not going to be possible with the metadata dispute. The parties agreed. With the parties' positions fully explained in letters previously submitted to the Special Master and discussed during conferences, to spare the parties the extra expense of drafting and filing motions and memoranda anew and the delay of a standard briefing and argument schedule, the Special Master provided the parties with a procedure for efficiently documenting the dispute in the record. Specifically, the Special Master requested that the Defendants file a motion to compel, requesting the specific relief sought, and attach the letters as exhibits. No further argument was permitted. Then the Special Master asked the Plaintiffs to file an opposition, also without more argument, simply attaching their letters and emails. The Plaintiffs' Opposition included about two pages of further argument. (Doc. 62.) Although the Plaintiffs contend that the Opposition does not contain any new argument, the direction was to file pro forma papers with the previously written substance attached as exhibits. Because the Opposition did more than was requested, the Special Master will disregard the text of the Opposition, except to the extent it refers to the letters and emails attached as exhibits. In response to the noncompliant Opposition, rather than first reaching out to the Special Master for guidance on a procedural issue, the Defendant immediately filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Compel Production of Text Messages and Metadata (Doc. 64). Although the Motion to Strike cites no law, it requests that the entirety of the Opposition be stricken, that the Motion to Compel be deemed unopposed and granted, and that the Court award monetary sanctions for filing the Motion to Strike. The requested relief is out of proportion to the infraction. As indicated above, the Special Master will disregard the text in the Opposition to the extent that it provides any information beyond the letters and argument previously made. No other remedy is necessary. No monetary sanctions should be awarded for an unnecessary motion. Thus, the Special Master Recommends that the Motion to Strike be denied. B. Motion to Compel 1. Motion to Compel Standards A party “may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “The Rules further provide that considerations of proportionality include ‘the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.’ ” Cauley v. Geisinger Clinic, No. 24-1435, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 11603, at *4 (3d Cir. May 14, 2025) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)). 2. What is Not at Issue Before analyzing the Motion to Compel, it is important to note what is not at issue at this time. In addition to the cogent points in support of and in opposition the Motion to Compel, both parties have intertwined separate issues within their arguments that are not relevant to this Motion to Compel. Duty to Preserve. Both parties take issue with the other's preservation of text messages and related documents. The Defendants claim that the Plaintiffs had a duty to preserve ESI evidence before they were terminated and deleted text messages during that time. See, e.g., Doc. 59-2, at 2-4. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants failed to preserve text messages and other critical documents. See, e.g., Doc. 62-1, at 6-7. These issues are not ripe and do not impact the question of the form of production and metadata of text messages that do exist. The parties may raise spoliation issues after the close of discovery, if warranted. The Merits of the Claims. The Plaintiffs argued the merits of the Defendants' liability in their submissions. See, e.g., Doc. 62-1, at 4-6. The Plaintiffs' perceived likelihood of success on the merits based on discovery to date does not limit the discovery that the Defendants may be entitled to. Thus, the strength of the merits are irrelevant to the scope of discovery. Admissibility of Evidence at Trial. The Plaintiffs contend that their post-termination text messages are unlikely to be admissible at trial. See, e.g., Doc. 62-2, at 2-3. But the scope of discovery is broader than the scope of admissible evidence at trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (“Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.”). Thus, admissibility is not part of the analysis. 3. Impact of Prior Requests, Orders, Conference Letters, and Passage of Time The Defendants contend that, under the Joint Rule 26(f) Report and the Court's standard Order Governing Electronic Discovery, the Parties must “provide the metadata associated with the original documents they produce.” (Doc. 59-1, at 7.) They assert that the Plaintiffs have produced text messages in PDF format, which “capture the metadata pertaining to the production version, which is to say, the metadata pertains to the PDF version itself. The Plaintiffs' production documents do not capture the metadata associated with the original text message.” Id. The parties' Joint Rule 26(f) Report states that “[t]he parties will produce documents in native and/or Tiff+ format unless the document only exists in a PDF format.” (Doc. 16, at 4.) The requests at issue, however, came in the form of a subpoena. (Doc. 62-2, at 9-12.) The subpoena does not specify the form of production. See id. It does, however, include a copy of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)-(g). Id. at 11. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(e)(1)(B), “If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.” PDF is a reasonably usable form. See Smith v. TFI Family Servs., No. 17-02235-JWB-GEB, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151466, at *14 (D. Kan. Sep. 4, 2019). The Plaintiffs began producing text messages by October 2024 in PDF format. (Doc. 62-2, at 3.) When the Special Master began supervising discovery disputes, the Defendants did raise concerns about metadata production in January and early February 2025. However, the Special Master understood this to be a specific, technical issue the parties were working to resolve and not a broad-based issue with the form of production. For example, confirming a conference discussion, the Special Master wrote on January 17, 2025 that “counsel or their respective technical designee will communicate to attempt to resolve the apparent discrepancy between the format of the documents as produced by the Plaintiff and as received by the Defendants.” (Doc. 50, at 2.) In the parties' Joint Status Report filed on February 3, 2025, the Defendants stated that Plaintiffs' files did contain limited metadata but also blank fields. (Doc. 52, at 7.) The Defendants did not raise an issue with PDF production in this communication. And during conferences held in March 2025, the Defendants did not identify the issue with PDF formatting. See Doc. 58 (PDF and metadata not addressed). The first time that the Defendants specifically took issue with the PDF format, as opposed to more generalized concerns about metadata, was their May 20, 2025 letter. (Doc. 59-1, at 1-11). By then, Plaintiffs had produced a substantial amount of text messages in PDF form. By now, it appears that all Plaintiffs' text message should have been produced; presumably it has all occurred in a consistent PDF format. See Doc. 59-4, at 2-3 (listing agreed production dates by Plaintiffs ending on 6/16/25). Overall, the parties' Rule 26 Conference Report noted a certain file format, while a subpoena for documents left the production format open. The parties discussed metadata issues generally during conferences in early 2025, but the Defendants did not specifically identify the PDF formatting as an issue until May 20, 2025. All the while, the Plaintiffs were in the process of reviewing and producing text messages. Therefore, the Special Master does not recommend that the Plaintiffs be required to produce text messages in the format the Defendants now request without reference to other discovery principles. 4. Relevance and Proportionality As an initial matter, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(e)(1)(c), “[t]he person responding need not produce the same electronically stored information in more than one form.” Thus, to the extent that the Motion to Compel seeks the same information in a second form, the Plaintiffs should not need to reproduce. But because the Defendants contend that certain components of the ESI were not produced in any form, the Special Master consider the other discovery principles. Relevance and proportionality are the touchstones of the scope of discovery. When assessing proportionality of discovery, considerations include “the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.’ ” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Of these considerations, the parties' focus has been the importance and benefits of the metadata and the burden of further review and production. The Defendants, citing an expert report, identify numerous “minimum fields” of metadata that they contend should be available and could be produced with minimal burden. (Doc. 59-3, at 3.) However, most of the listed fields contain information that is also contained on the PDF text message strings produced. Of the metadata fields listed, the following are readily apparent on the face of the PDFs: Thread name (aka Chat Name); Service (i.e., SMS or iMessage);[3] Type (i.e., Outgoing or Incoming); Sender Name; Replying To; Subject (if any); and Text. Four fields address various dates (Message Date; Delivery Date; Read Date; Edited Date (if edited)). The PDFs do contain the date and time that a series of text messages were sent. It is unclear which metadata date field the available time and date would populate. Suffice to say, the PDFs do contain dates and times sufficient to identify the general time around which a text conversation was ongoing, but they do not contain the specific time and date information for each individual message. Of the other fields, the significance of Source ID and Sender ID is unknown, and attachment name and attachment type assume the existence of attachments to the text messages. In total, the additional information that could be gained by the metadata are more specific dates, a Source ID and Sender ID, and additional attachment information. The Defendants have failed to explain the importance or benefit of this additional information. The produced PDFs show who was speaking to whom and on approximately what date and time. Most importantly, the PDFs contain the content of the text messages. In pressing for the metadata, the Defendants contend that Plaintiffs' emails, “clearly demonstrate the disdain, hostility, and obstruction they directed toward their new supervisor ... during the relevant period.” (Doc. 59-4, at 2.) From this, the Defendants believe that “[t]he only reasonable inference is that disclosure of Plaintiffs' metadata would display Plaintiffs' disdain and obstruction and be highly damaging to their claims.” Id. The metadata will not demonstrate disdain, hostility, or obstruction. Only the content would. The content has been produced in the PDFs.[4] While the additional information that could be obtained from the metadata has limited importance in the context of the case, the burden of reproduction on the Plaintiffs would be significant. The Plaintiffs would effectively have to reproduce all text messages in a new format. Although the Defendants argue that this burden would be minimal and inexpensive, the Plaintiffs disagree. The impact of already-completed redactions is significant here. Much of the parties' text message issues addressed during conferences with the Special Master focused on redactions, ultimately resulting in agreement on a redaction process given the unrelated information. See Doc. 58, ¶ 5. This review and redaction process was a significant undertaking for Plaintiffs' counsel. For the Plaintiffs to produce text messages in an Excel or CSV output format, it would require another manual redaction of over 1,000 pages of text messages. (Doc. 62-1, at 8.). Even if a non-attorney could match PDF redactions to another format in the initial instance as Defendants suggest, an attorney would need to supervise that work. Thus, the burden of reproduction of all text messages in Excel or CSV format with metadata would be a significant burden on the Plaintiffs. The relief sought by the Defendants' Motion to Compel would provide limited additional information of limited importance to the issues in the case. The burden and expense on the Plaintiff would outweigh any limited benefit to the Defendants. Accordingly, the Special Master Recommends that the Motion to Compel be denied. IV. RECOMMENDATION For the reasons above, the Special Master recommends that (1) Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Compel Production of Text Messages and Metadata (Doc. 64) be DENIED and (2) Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Text Messages and Metadata (Doc. 59) be DENIED. Respectfully submitted, James J. Rohn, Esq., Special Master ORDER AND NOW, this ____ day of ____, 2025, based upon the June 20, 2025 Report and Recommendation of the Special Master, it is hereby ORDERED that: Defendants' Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion to Compel Production of Text Messages and Metadata (Doc. 64) is DENIED. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Text Messages and Metadata (Doc. 59) is DENIED. Footnotes [1] All citations to docketed filings in this Report and Recommendation refer to the document numbers in the Petrongola docket (No. 23-734) as the first-filed case. As discovery in the related cases is occurring together, identical or nearly identical papers have been filed in each case, though the document numbers across each separately docketed case may differ. Where page numbers are cited, they refer to the page number in the docketing stamp at the top of the page. [2] The Defendants also filed a Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Compel Production of Text Messages and Metadata. (Doc. 64.) As discussed below, the Special Master recommends that the Motion to Strike be denied. [3] Known by the color of the sender's message background – green for SMS; blue for iMessage. [4] As the Special Master has indicated previously, if the Defendants have a specific concern about specific redactions or text messages, “[c]ounsel for both parties should work together as officers of the court to exchange necessary information in an efficient manner.” (Doc. 58, at ¶ 5.)