In Anderson Living Trust v. WPX Energy Production LLC, No. 12-0040 (D.N.M. Mar. 6, 2014), the court undertook a detailed analysis of an apparent conflict within Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E), which governs the form of document production.  One sub-clause of that Rule, (E)(i), provides that a party “must produce documents as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the category in the request.”  Another sub-clause, (E)(ii), provides that “[i]f a request does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, a party must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.”  Here, the plaintiff requested that hard-copy documents be produced electronically, but then demanded that the defendant also “organize the production” pursuant to the first sub-clause.  The court held that the two sub-clauses are mutually exclusive:  “Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i) governs hard copy documents, and (E)(ii) governs ESI, with no overlap between.”  Thus “[r]equesting parties are entitled to the guarantees of (E)(i) or (E)(ii), but not both.”  Electronic documents need not be organized in  a particular way because “parties requesting ESI [are] able to organize it themselves—in their own way, to their own satisfactory level of thoroughness, and at their own expense—through the use of text-searching technologies like filtering, grouping, and ordering.”  Because plaintiffs demanded that the paper documents be produced as ESI, the requirements of (E)(i) did not apply, and defendants were not required to organize the documents in any particular way.