Couch v. State of California, et al

Filing 227

Joint STIPULATION and ORDER Regarding CDCR Production of Electronic Discovery, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 3/27/2012. (Figueroa, O)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

BROOKS M. BEARD (CA Bar No. 181271)
Email: [e-mail]
DANIEL A. ZLATNIK (CA Bar No. 259690)
Email: [e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
EDWARD J. CADEN (CA Bar No. 166922)
Email: [e-mail]
LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD J. CADEN
9245 Laguna Springs Drive, Suite 200
Elk Grove, California 95753
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs RYAN COUCH and KENNETH
JIMENEZ

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
SCOTT WYCKOFF
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
MARY HORST (CA Bar No. 163069)
Deputy Attorney General
WILLIAM H. LITTLEWOOD
Deputy Attorney General
2550 Mariposa Mall, Room 5090
Fresno, CA 93721
Telephone: [phone]
Fax [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

18
19

Attorneys for Third-Party CDCR and Defendants TOMMY
WAN, KIMBERLI BONCORE, and RALPH DIAZ

20

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

21

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

22
23

RYAN COUCH and KENNETH JIMENEZ,
Plaintiffs,

24
25
26

v.
TOMMY WAN, KIMBERLI BONCORE, and
RALPH DIAZ,

Case No. 1:08-cv-01621-LJO-DLB
JOINT STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER
REGARDING CDCR
PRODUCTION OF ELECTRONIC
DISCOVERY
No Hearing Requested

27
Defendants.
28
CASE NO. 1:08-CV-01621-LJO-DLB
sf-3124005

1
2

Pursuant to the agreement made at the March 22, 2012 telephonic conference before the

3

Court, Plaintiffs RYAN COUCH and KENNETH JIMENEZ, Defendants TOMMY WAN,

4

KIMBERLI BONCORE, and RALPH DIAZ, and the CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

5

CORRECTIONS AND REHALIBITATION (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their

6

respective counsel of record, jointly request that the Court adopt the following stipulation with

7

respect to CDCR’s production of electronic discovery.

8

The Parties hereby stipulate as follows:

9

1.

By March 30, 2012, CDCR shall provide Plaintiffs all electronic documents for

10

the 2005-2008 period based on Plaintiffs’ January 20, 2012 Revised List of Search Terms.

11

Plaintiffs will review the electronic documents (e.g., take a “quick peek”), and then identify a

12

subset of responsive documents for CDCR’s official production with Bates numbering.

13

2.

By April 13, 2012, and except for documents identified as having an attorneys

14

name via an electronic search, CDCR shall provide Plaintiffs all electronic documents for the

15

post-2008 period based on Plaintiffs’ January 20, 2012 Revised List of Search Terms. Plaintiffs

16

will review the electronic documents (e.g., take a “quick peek”), and then identify a subset of

17

responsive documents for CDCR’s official production with Bates numbering. CDCR will make a

18

diligent and good faith effort to comply with the April 13, 2012 production deadline. CDCR will

19

notify Plaintiffs’ counsel as soon as possible should CDCR have good cause to believe it will not

20

meet the April 13, 2012 production deadline.

21

3.

Within ten (10) business days after Plaintiffs have completed their review of each

22

subset of documents described above and submitted to CDCR a list of documents for production,

23

Plaintiffs shall return to CDCR or destroy the electronic data.

24

4.

25

Any person who, prior to official production of documents as signified by Bates
numbers being applied to those documents, has reviewed or accessed another Party’s
raw electronic data that is ultimately deemed by agreement of the Parties or judicial
determination to be non-responsive or irrelevant to the claims in this litigation shall
be prohibited from using any such raw electronic discovery deemed non-responsive
or irrelevant for any other purpose, including but not limited to further investigation,
initiation of a separate lawsuit, representation in a separate lawsuit, or referral for

26
27
28

The Parties agree to the following amendment to the Protective Order:

CASE NO. 1:08-CV-01621-LJO-DLB
sf-3124005

1

1
2
3

initiation of a separate lawsuit. Before beginning review of the other Party’s raw
electronic data, the receiving Party shall first identify any person who will be
reviewing the raw electronic data.

4
5
6

5.

The Parties are filing along with this Joint Stipulation and Order a Third

Amended Protective Order adding the new provision from Paragraph 4.

7
8

Dated: March 23, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

10

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
BROOKS M. BEARD
DANIEL A. ZLATNIK

11

By: /s/ Brooks M. Beard

9

12
LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD J. CADEN
EDWARD J. CADEN

13
14

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ryan Couch and
Kenneth Jimenez

15
16

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA
KAMALA D. HARRIS
SCOTT WYCKOFF
MARY HORST

17
18
19

By: /s/ Mary Horst

20

Attorneys for Third Party CDCR and
Defendants Tommy Wan, Kimberli
Boncore, and Ralph Diaz

21
22
23
24

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 27, 2012

25

By:

26

/s/ Dennis L. Beck
Dennis L. Beck
U.S. Magistrate Judge

27
28

CASE NO. 1:08-CV-01621-LJO-DLB
sf-3124005

2