In German v. Micro Electronics, Inc., No. 12-292 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 11, 2013), the court applied a relatively new and rarely cited provision, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2)(D), to decide a dispute concerning the format of e-discovery production.  That provision, which was adopted in 2006, provides that a party producing electronic materials must state the form that it intends to use for the production in its written response to document requests.  The advisory notes state that “[a] party that responds to a discovery request by simply producing electronically stored information in a form of its choice, without identifying that form in advance of the production in the response required by Rule 34(b), runs a risk that the requesting party can show that the produced form is not reasonably usable and that it is entitled to production of some or all of the information in an additional form.”  In German, the producing party did not provide an advance notice of the format it would use to produce electronic materials.  The court relied on Rule 34(b)(2)(D) in granting a motion to compel and requiring the producing party to recreate its production in a usable electronic format.