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: robert.kramer@dentons.com
Jennifer D. Bennett (Bar No. 235196)
Email: jennifer.bennett@dentons.com
C. Gideon Korrell (Bar No. 284890)
Email: gideon.korrell@dentons.com
DENTONS US LLP
1530 Page Mill Road, Suite 200
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: (650) 798-0300
Facsimile: (650) 798-0310
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
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?