In McKinney/Pearl Restaurant Partners, L.P. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., No. 14-cv-2498 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2016), the district court denied in part the plaintiff’s demand for the forensic imaging of defendants’ computers.  The plaintiff contended that defendants could only produce responsive documents as they are kept in the usual course of business, as required under Rule 34(b)(2)(E), by producing a forensic copy of the computer system where the documents were kept.  The court disagreed, holding that defendants’ production of ESI was sufficient to the extent that the documents were produced in a form that “preserve[d] [and did not degrade] the functional utility of the electronic information produced,” such as searchability and native formatting.  The court also required defendants to supplement their production with system metadata revealing where the ESI was kept and how it was organized, including the file names and paths for produced files and the identities of file custodians.