Ashmeade v. Amazon.com Services LLC, No. 7:23-cv-04331-KMK-VR (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2026), full opinion (PDF)
Amazon lost a dispute over two native files. It did not argue that producing them that way would be a burden. Its only answer on that point, as the court put it, was that its TIFF production was reasonably usable. A former employee suing over his termination had asked for the two documents in native format with their metadata from the start. He had tied them to his central allegation of pretext. On August 27 a magistrate judge in the Southern District of New York ordered them produced that way. The same order required Amazon to identify which documents answer which requests, or to explain how its production reflected the way the documents were kept. The court also ordered a log for every redaction Amazon had made on grounds other than privilege.
What happened
The plaintiff alleges that Amazon fired him on a pretext. He complained that Amazon had refused native production with metadata, pressing the point for two documents in particular. His claims, he contends, turn on fabrication after the fact, which only the native files and their metadata would let him test. Amazon had produced the documents as TIFF images with load files and extracted text, by its own description. It answered that the request rested on speculation that the documents had been altered. The rules, it added, require only a reasonably usable form, which its production satisfied.
The plaintiff also complained that Amazon's written responses pointed him to a page range without saying which documents answered which request. Amazon replied that it did not have to reorganize its production to suit him. The plaintiff further objected to heavy redactions, which he read as privilege claims made without a log. Amazon explained that the redactions covered personal, confidential employee, and other sensitive nonparty information rather than privileged material.
The court's analysis
The court began from the rule that a producing party need not accept the requesting party's specification of form. The plaintiff's initial requests had asked for the native files and the metadata, the court noted. He had also explained their relevance to the central allegation of pretext. Amazon, the court observed, did not argue that producing two documents natively would be unduly burdensome. Its only argument was that its production was already reasonably usable. With no burden showing from Amazon, the court concluded that the two requests were relevant and proportional. It ordered the native files produced with their metadata. The record, the court stated, did not justify redoing the entire production in native form with metadata.
The page-range dispute turned on the two options Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i) gives a producing party. Documents are produced either as they are kept in the usual course of business or organized and labeled to correspond to the requests. In the court's view, a party choosing the first option carries the burden of showing that its production reflects how the documents were kept. The court added that producing ESI as kept, in text-searchable form, generally satisfies that burden. Amazon, the court found, had neither organized the documents to the requests nor explained that they were produced as kept. The court directed Amazon to do one or the other. If Amazon chooses the usual-course route, it must explain how the documents were maintained.
Redacting parts of a document is normally impermissible unless the redaction rests on a privilege, the court stated. For a redaction made on any other ground, the court continued, the producing party must state the general nature of the withheld information and the reason for the removal. The court required Amazon to log the basis for each nonprivileged redaction. The same order also addressed two other discovery disputes.
Why it matters
The plaintiff asked for native files at the outset, tying the request to a specific allegation. A producing party that wants to keep TIFF for such documents should expect to put the burden of native production in the record. Amazon argued the adequacy of the form it chose. With no burden showing in the record, Amazon had nothing on its side of the proportionality balance. The plaintiff had already connected the documents to his pretext allegation.
The usual-course option under Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i) is a representation, not a default. A response that cites a page range makes no representation about how the documents were kept. A party choosing that option should be able to say, in its written response, which systems the documents came from and in what order they were exported. Absent that description, the court's reading of the rule leaves the party with the organize-and-label alternative.
Under this order, a privacy redaction in an employment case carries the same logging obligation as any other nonprivilege redaction. Producing the document intact under a protective order avoids the log entirely, which is often the cheaper course.
The full opinion is available as a PDF.
