Metadata Matters In EDiscovery: Lessons From Moore v. Garnand

The court ruling in Greg Moore, et al. v. Sean Garnand, et al. highlights how much metadata matters in eDiscovery and litigation, where it serves as a vital piece of evidence that can provide clarity in ways that testimony alone cannot. 

According to the case, the plaintiffs sought discovery related to metadata accompanying photographs taken during a police investigation, arguing that it was crucial for reconstructing a timeline of events that witness recollections could not fully capture. The Court ultimately granted the plaintiffs’ motion to compel the production of metadata but declined to impose sanctions.

The case stems from a § 1983 action brought by the Moores, who alleged their constitutional rights were violated during an arson investigation involving search warrants executed at their home and business. The Tucson Police Department provided photographs taken during these searches but did not initially include metadata, which the plaintiffs argued was essential for establishing the precise sequence of events. The metadata was necessary because the officers involved could no longer recall the timeline accurately. The Court agreed that the metadata was critical and should have been disclosed initially under the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project (MIDP).

The Court’s ruling emphasized the importance of metadata in litigation, particularly in reconstructing events where human recollection may be faulty. The decision to compel the production of metadata underscored its value as more than just a technical detail—it is an essential tool for building a clear, fact-based narrative. The Court disagreed with the defendants’ argument that placards in the photographs were sufficient, reinforcing that metadata often provides the hard facts needed to support or refute claims.

For law firms, this case serves as a powerful reminder of the necessity to request metadata early and ensure its inclusion in discovery protocols. As Kelly Twigger notes in an ACEDS article analyzing this case, metadata is a litigator’s best friend, providing critical insights into a case’s “who, what, when, and where.” By failing to prioritize metadata, litigators risk incomplete evidence and weakened arguments. 

Moreover, Twigger highlights the risks of non-compliance with discovery obligations, as sanctions under Rule 37 are possible for failing to disclose relevant electronically stored information. Firms should ensure that their ESI protocols explicitly request metadata to avoid delays, disputes, and potential sanctions.