Extract from Phil Favro’s article “Getting Beyond Spreadsheets: Handling Structured Data Productions”
Civil discovery has traditionally been governed by a “document-centric” mindset. Counsel have generally visualized their production obligations in terms of document numbers, whether those documents are housed as paper records in a filing cabinet or as TIFFs on an eDiscovery platform. However, over the past several years, as corporate data environments have evolved, lawyers have shifted to addressing ESI as data and not merely as documents.
This trend is evident in many newer forms of ESI, with chat and text message strings as notable examples. Another key manifestation of this trend is found in structured data environments. Structured data sources—e.g., relational databases, project management dashboards, and complex data warehouses—often do not maintain data in the form of traditional documents until a specific query is run to obtain information. In the past, this technical distinction may have allowed producing parties, in certain instances, to avoid having to produce relevant structured data.
Nevertheless, courts have been reluctant to relieve producing parties from their obligation to produce relevant database ESI, given the critical role this type of data may have in certain litigation. Indeed, judges have frequently ordered the production of relevant structured data to ensure requesting parties obtain much-needed evidence while also addressing issues such as reasonable usability, form of production, and undue burden. Several recent cases reflect this judicial trend and exemplify how courts expect litigants to handle the discovery of structured data in 2026 and beyond.
