In Branhaven v. Beeftek, Inc., No. 11-2334 (D. Md. Jan. 4, 2013), the District Court of Maryland sanctioned the plaintiff for two failures related to a late and voluminous production of e-discovery material. First, the court held that plaintiff’s counsel had provided a false discovery certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g) when he signed discovery responses stating that the plaintiff would “make the responsive documents available for inspection and copying at a mutually convenient time.” The court found that, at the time counsel signed the statement, he had not made any effort to locate responsive documents. It was not until several months later that plaintiff’s counsel started the document search. The court thus held that the plaintiff “essentially misled defendants and their counsel, in its affirmative statement that responsive documents would be ‘available for inspection’ . . . while in fact not knowing what if any responsive documents there might be and when if ever they would be identified and produced.” Second, the court held that the plaintiff’s voluminous production of emails in “.pdf” format was not a “reasonably usable form” as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(ii). The court faulted the plaintiff for not using the more commonly accepted “.tiff” format and also for not specifying in advance the format it would use. The court required the plaintiff and plaintiff’s attorney to pay attorneys’ fees and costs of defendants that were caused by the discovery failures.