Sheehan Genetics, et al v. Jakov P. Dulcich and Sons, LLC

Filing 17

STIPULATION and ORDER RE: DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION FOR PATENT LITIGATION signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/29/15 15 . (Meuleman, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Robert F. Kramer (Bar No. 181706)
Email: [e-mail]
Jennifer D. Bennett (Bar No. 235196)
Email: [e-mail]
C. Gideon Korrell (Bar No. 284890)
Email: [e-mail]
DENTONS US LLP
1530 Page Mill Road, Suite 200
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Sheehan Genetics, LLC and Benkirk, Inc.,
d/b/a Williams Nursery

9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13
14

SHEEHAN GENETICS, LLC, AND
BENKIRK, INC. D/B/A WILLIAMS
NURSERY,

15
16
17
18
19

Plaintiffs,
v.

No. 2:14-cv-02227-KJM-DAD
STIPULATION & ORDER RE:
DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY
STORED INFORMATION FOR PATENT
LITIGATION

JAKOV P. DULCICH AND SONS, LLC,
JAKOV P. DULCICH, NICK P. DULCICH,
AND PETER DULCICH,
Defendants.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION & ORDER RE: DISCOVERY OF
ESI FOR PATENT LITIGATION

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-02227-KJM-DAD

1
2

Upon the stipulation of the parties, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1.

This Order supplements all other discovery rules and orders. It streamlines

3

Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”) production to promote a “just, speedy, and inexpensive

4

determination of this action, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1.”

5

2.

This Order may be modified in the Court’s discretion or by stipulation. The

6

parties shall jointly submit any proposed modifications within 30 days after the Federal Rule of

7

Civil Procedure 16 Conference.

8
9
10
11
12
13

3.

As in all cases, costs may be shifted for disproportionate ESI production requests

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Likewise, a party’s nonresponsive or dilatory
discovery tactics are cost-shifting considerations.
4.

A party’s meaningful compliance with this Order and efforts to promote efficiency

and reduce costs will be considered in cost-shifting determinations.
5.

The parties are expected to comply with the Northern District’s E-Discovery

14

Guidelines (“Guidelines”) and are encouraged to employ the Northern District’s Model Stipulated

15

Order Re: the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information and Checklist for Rule 26(f) Meet

16

and Confer regarding Electronically Stored Information.

17

6.

General ESI production requests under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 34 and 45

18

shall not include email or other forms of electronic correspondence (collectively “email”). To

19

obtain email parties must propound specific email production requests.

20
21
22

7.

Email production requests shall only be propounded for specific issues, rather than

general discovery of a product or business.
8.

Email production requests shall be phased to occur after the parties have

23

exchanged initial disclosures and basic documentation about the patents, the prior art, the accused

24

instrumentalities, and the relevant finances. While this provision does not require the production

25

of such information, the Court encourages prompt and early production of this information to

26

promote efficient and economical streamlining of the case.

27
28

9.

Email production requests shall identify the custodian, search terms, and time

frame. The parties shall cooperate to identify the proper custodians, proper search terms and
-1STIPULATION & ORDER RE: DISCOVERY OF
ESI FOR PATENT LITIGATION

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-02227-KJM-DAD

1

proper timeframe as set forth in the Guidelines.

2

10.

Each requesting party shall limit its email production requests to a total of ten

3

custodians per producing party for all such requests. The parties may jointly agree to modify this

4

limit without the Court’s leave. The Court shall consider contested requests for additional

5

custodians, upon showing a distinct need based on the size, complexity, and issues of this specific

6

case. Cost-shifting may be considered as part of any such request.

7

11.

Each requesting party shall limit its email production requests to a total of ten

8

search terms per custodian per party. The parties may jointly agree to modify this limit without

9

the Court’s leave. The Court shall consider contested requests for additional search terms per

10

custodian, upon showing a distinct need based on the size, complexity, and issues of this specific

11

case. The Court encourages the parties to confer on a process to test the efficacy of the search

12

terms. The search terms shall be narrowly tailored to particular issues. Indiscriminate terms,

13

such as the producing company’s name or its product name, are inappropriate unless combined

14

with narrowing search criteria that sufficiently reduce the risk of overproduction. A conjunctive

15

combination of multiple words or phrases (e.g., “computer” and “system”) narrows the search and

16

shall count as a single search term. A disjunctive combination of multiple words or phrases (e.g.,

17

“computer” or “system”) broadens the search, and thus each word or phrase shall count as a

18

separate search term unless they are variants of the same word. Use of narrowing search criteria

19

(e.g., “and,” “but not,” “w/x”) is encouraged to limit the production and shall be considered when

20

determining whether to shift costs for disproportionate discovery. Should a party serve email

21

production requests with search terms beyond the limits agreed to by the parties or granted by the

22

Court pursuant to this paragraph, this shall be considered in determining whether any party shall

23

bear all reasonable costs caused by such additional discovery.

24

12.

Nothing in this Order prevents the parties from agreeing to use technology assisted

25

review and other techniques insofar as their use improves the efficacy of discovery. Such topics

26

should be discussed pursuant to the District’s E-Discovery Guidelines.

27

///

28
-2STIPULATION & ORDER RE: DISCOVERY OF
ESI FOR PATENT LITIGATION

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-02227-KJM-DAD

1

IT IS SO STIPULATED, through Counsel of Record.

2
3

DATED: January 28, 2015

4
5

By: /s/ Jennifer D. Bennett
DENTONS US LLP
Robert F. Kramer
Jennifer D. Bennett
C. Gideon Korrell

6

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
Sheehan Genetics, LLC and Benkirk, Inc. d/b/a
Williams Nursery

7
8
9

DATED: January 28, 2015

10
11

By: /s/ Christopher E. Dominguez
KLEIN, DENATALE, GOLDNER, COOPER,
ROSENLIEB & KIMBALL, LLP
William A. Bruce
Christopher E. Dominguez

12

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS
Jakov P. Dulcich and Sons, LLC, Jakov P. Dulcich,
Nick P. Dulcich, and Peter Dulcich

13
14
15
16
17

ORDER
Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 29, 2015

18
19
20

Ddad1\orders.civil
sheehan2227.stip.esi.ord.doc

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3STIPULATION & ORDER RE: DISCOVERY OF
ESI FOR PATENT LITIGATION

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-02227-KJM-DAD