PerfectVision Manufacturing Inc v. PPC Broadband Inc
E-DISCOVERY ORDER. Signed by Judge J. Leon Holmes on 7/3/2014. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PerfectVision Manufacturing, Inc.
Case No. 4:12-cv-623 (JLH)
PPC Broadband, Inc., d/b/a PPC
By agreement of the parties and for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED as
This Order supplements all other discovery rules and orders. It streamlines
Electronically Stored Information ("ESI") production to promote a "just, speedy, and
inexpensive determination" of this action, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1.
This Order may be modified for good cause.
Costs will be shifted for disproportionate ESI production requests pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Likewise, a party's nonresponsive or dilatory discovery
tactics will be cost -shifting considerations.
A party's meaningful compliance with this Order and efforts to promote
efficiency and reduce costs will be considered in cost-shifting determinations.
General ESI production requests under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 34 and
45 shall not include email or other forms of electronic correspondence (collectively "email"), and
Instead, email and other forms of electronic correspondence, and
attachments thereto, shall be collected in accordance with Paragraphs 6 through 9 of this Order,
and produced within 30 days following service of search terms for a particular custodian, unless
otherwise agreed to by the parties in writing. The parties further agree not to object to any good
faith request for an additional reasonable amount of time to make a production.
The parties shall cooperate to identify the proper custodians, proper search terms
and proper timeframe.
Each requesting party shall agree that production requests requiring email
production be limited to a total of eight custodians per producing party for all such requests.
Each requesting party may review responsive documents from a subset of custodians and later
identify additional custodians for a supplemental production so long as the total custodians do
not exceed seven. The parties may jointly agree to modify this limit without the Court's leave.
The Court shall consider contested requests for additional custodians, upon a showing of distinct
need based on the size, complexity, and issues of this specific case. Should a party request email
production for additional custodians beyond the limits agreed to by the parties or granted by the
Court pursuant to this paragraph, the requesting party shall bear all reasonable costs caused by
such additional discovery.
Each requesting party shall agree that production requests requmng email
production be limited to a total of eight search terms per party. The parties may jointly agree to
modify this limit without the Court's leave. The Court shall consider contested requests for
additional search terms, upon a showing of distinct need based on the size, complexity, and
issues of this specific case. Each party may submit its proposed terms to the responding party to
perform searches and report the number of responsive documents before the final terms are
agreed to. Each requesting party may review responsive documents from a subset of search
terms and later identify additional search terms for a supplemental production so long as the total
search terms do not exceed eight. The search terms shall be narrowly tailored to particular
issues. Indiscriminate terms, such as the producing company's name or its product name, are
inappropriate unless combined with narrowing search criteria that sufficiently reduce the risk of
overproduction. A conjunctive combination of multiple words or phrases (e.g., "computer" and
"system") narrows the search and shall count as a single search term. A disjunctive combination
of multiple words or phrases (e.g., "computer" or "system") broadens the search, and thus each
word or phrase shall count as a separate search term unless they are variants of the same word.
Use of narrowing search criteria (e.g., "and," "but not," "w/x") is encouraged to limit the
production and shall be considered when determining whether to shift costs for disproportionate
discovery. Should a party request email production using search terms beyond the limits agreed
to by the parties or granted by the Court pursuant to this paragraph, the requesting party shall
bear all reasonable costs caused by such additional discovery.
ESI should generally be produced with Concordance/Opticon load files and the
following file formats:
Single page, Group IV TIFFs (1 bit, black and white) for e-mail and Word
Single page, JPEG images for PDF, presentation (e.g., PowerPoint), and
other graphic files.
ESI shall be produced with any available extractable text at the document level
(i.e., not per page), and OCR data shall be provided for ESI that does not contain extractable text.
All spreadsheet documents (e.g., Excel, CSV, etc.) shall be produced in native
format with a spacer image sheet indicating same. The original file names of such documents
shall be preceded with the same Bates number and designation (if any) shown on the spacer
Alternatively, spreadsheet documents may be produced as pre-formatted TIFF
images in printable format. If a party elects to produce spreadsheet documents in this format,
metadata must be preserved and the producing party must review the documents at issue in
advance of production and ensure that excess blank pages or pages containing partial spreadsheet
images are not included within the production set. A producing party that fails to comply with
these requirements must produce such spreadsheet documents in native format, as specified in
Paragraph 13, upon request by a receiving party.
ESI productions of imaged data shall include the metadata field information
defined in Schedule A, attached hereto, where such metadata information is present in the
document(s) being produced.
Each document shall have a unique file name, which shall be the Bates number of
that page or the page range of the document. The Bates number must appear on the face of each
page, in the lower right comer.
In the interest of reducing any unnecessary costs associated with reviewing and
producing duplicative ESI, the parties are not required to produce duplicates of electronic
documents, identified by MD-5 or SHA-1 algorithms, stored in different locations. Thus, a party
may provide a single copy of a document although the document was distributed to multiple
recipients. The parties reserve the right to request that the producing party disclose custodian
information for particular documents.
The parties shall make reasonable efforts to preserve parent-child relationships
(the association between an attachment and its parent document).
The receiving party shall not use ESI that the producing party asserts is attorney-
client privileged or work product protected to challenge the privilege or protection.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(b ), the inadvertent production of
privileged or work product protected ESI is not a waiver in the pending case or in any other
federal or state proceeding.
The mere production of ESI in a litigation as part of a mass production shall not
itself constitute a waiver for any purpose.
DATED: July 3, 2014
NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DAVIDSON LAW FIRM
/s David L. Gershner
Charles D. Davison, AR BIN 73026
David L. Gershner, AR BIN 2011168
HISCOCK & BARCLAY, LLP
Douglas J. Nash (pro hac vice)
John D. Cook (pro hac vice)
Mark Eric Galvez (pro hac vice)
Jason C. Halpin (pro hac vice)
Post Office Box 1300
Little Rock, AR 72203
Phone: (501) 374-9977
Fax: (501) 374-5917
One Park Place
300 South State Street
Syracuse, New York 13202
Tel: (315) 425-2828
Fax: (315) 703-7364
John R. Horvack, Jr.
195 Church Street
New Haven, CT 06509
Phone: (203) 784-3120
John K. Baker, email@example.com
Alex T. Gray, firstname.lastname@example.org
MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG,
GATES & WOODYARD, P.L.L.C.
425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Telephone: (501) 688-8800 (501) 688-8800
Facsimile: (501) 688-8807 (501) 688-8807
Attorneys for Plaintiff
PerfectVision Manufacturing, Inc.
Attorneys for Defendant
PPC Broadband, Inc.
Information from the subject line of an email message.
Must be in
Sent date of an email message.
Sent time of an email message. Must be in military
The hash value or "de-duplication key" assigned to a
document. The parties will use the MD5 hash value
for this uni ue identifier.
The original file name of native file. Contains subject
of email message for email records.
Bates number associated with the first page of a
Bates number associated with the last page of a
Attachment range for parent and children. The range
should start with the BEGDOCNO of the parent and
end with the ENDDOCNO of the last child.
Person, organization, or department from whom
materials were collected.
Email message "From" data or user/author name
associated with electronic files.
Recipients of an email message.
Recipients of carbon copies of an email message.
Recipients of blind copies of an email message.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?