Gutterglove, Inc. v. Lasell et al

Filing 75

STIPULATED ORDER RE: Discovery of Electronically stored information signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 10/15/18. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5

KUTAK ROCK LLP
Jacob Song (SBN 265371)
5 Park Plaza, Suite 1500
Irvine, CA 92614
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: (949)-417-5394
Email:
[e-mail]

6
7

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Sara Weilert Gillette, Pro Hac Vice
2300 Main St., Ste. 800
Kansas City, MO 64108-2416
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
Jason S. Jackson, Pro Hac Vice
1650 Farnam St.
Omaha, NE 68102-2186
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email:
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff, GUTTERGLOVE, INC.

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19
20

GUTTERGLOVE, INC. a California
Corporation,
Plaintiff,

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Case No. 2:17-CV-01372-WBS-CKD
Judge: Hon. Carolyn K. Delaney
Courtroom: 24, 8th Floor

v.

STIPULATED ORDER RE:
WILLIAM LASELL, an individual, DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY
AMERICAN DIE and
STORED INFORMATION
ROLLFORMING, INC., a California
corporation; and ARTESIAN HOME
PRODUCTS, dba VALOR
GUTTER GUARD,
Defendants.

28
K UTAK R OCK LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
IRVINE

CASE NO. 2:17-CV-01372-WBS-CKD

STIPULATED ESI ORDER

1

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

2

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

3

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

4
5
6
7

inexpensive determination of this action, as required by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 1.
2. This Order may be modified in the Court’s discretion. This Order may also

8

be modified for good cause.

9

modifications within 30 days after the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16

10
11

Conference.

The parties shall jointly submit any proposed

If the parties cannot resolve their disagreements regarding these

modifications, the parties shall submit their competing proposals and a summary of

12
13
14

their dispute.
3. As in all cases, costs may be shifted for disproportionate ESI production

15

requests pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Likewise, a party’s

16

nonresponsive or dilatory discovery tactics are cost-shifting considerations.

17
18
19
20

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
Guidelines (“Guidelines”), and are encouraged to employ the Checklist for Rule 26(f)

21
22
23

Meet and Confer regarding Electronically Stored Information. Otherwise the Local
Rules of the Eastern District of California shall continue to apply.

24

6. General ESI production requests under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 34

25

and 45 shall not include email or other forms of electronic correspondence

26

(collectively “email”). To obtain email parties must propound specific email

27
28
K UTAK R OCK LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
IRVINE

production requests.
-2CASE NO. 2:17-CV-01372-WBS-CKD

STIPULATED ESI ORDER

1
2
3

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

4
5
6

exchanged initial disclosures and basic documentation about the asserted claims and
defenses. While this provision does not require the production of such information,

7

the Court encourages prompt and early production of this information to promote

8

efficient and economical streamlining of the case.

9

9. Email production requests shall identify the custodian, search terms, and

10

time frame. The parties shall cooperate to identify the proper custodians, proper

11

search terms and proper timeframe.

12
13
14

10. Each requesting party shall limit its email production requests to a total of
seven custodians per producing party for all such requests. The parties may jointly

15

agree to modify this limit without the Court’s leave. The Court shall consider

16

contested requests for additional custodians, upon showing a distinct need based on

17

the size, complexity, and issues of this specific case. Cost-shifting may be considered

18

as part of any such request.

19

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

20

ten search terms per custodian per party. The parties may jointly agree to modify this
21
22

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

23

additional search terms per custodian, upon showing a distinct need based on the size,

24

complexity, and issues of this specific case. The Court encourages the parties to

25

confer on a process to test the efficacy of the search terms. The search terms shall be

26

narrowly tailored to particular issues. Indiscriminate terms, such as the producing

27

company’s name or its product name, are inappropriate unless combined with

28
K UTAK R OCK LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
IRVINE

-3CASE NO. 2:17-CV-01372-WBS-CKD

STIPULATED ESI ORDER

1

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

2

conjunctive combination of multiple words or phrases (e.g., “computer” and

3

“system”) narrows the search and shall count as a single search term. A disjunctive

4
5
6

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

7

they are variants of the same word. Use of narrowing search criteria (e.g., “and,” “but

8

not,” “w/x”) is encouraged to limit the production and shall be considered when

9

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

10

serve email production requests with search terms beyond the limits agreed to by the

11

parties or granted by the Court pursuant to this paragraph, this shall be considered in

12
13
14

determining whether any party shall bear all reasonable costs caused by such
additional discovery.

15

12. The receiving party shall not use ESI that the producing party asserts is

16

attorney-client privileged or work product protected to challenge the privilege or

17

protection.

18
19

13. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d), the inadvertent production
of a privileged or work product protected ESI is not a waiver in the pending case or

20

in any other federal or state proceeding.
21
22
23

14. The mere production of ESI in a litigation as part of a mass production
shall not itself constitute a waiver for any purpose.

24

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

25

assisted review and other techniques insofar as their use improves the efficacy of

26

discovery.

27
28
K UTAK R OCK LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
IRVINE

-4CASE NO. 2:17-CV-01372-WBS-CKD

STIPULATED ESI ORDER

1
2
3

IT IS SO STIPULATED, through Counsel of Record.
Date: October 11, 2018

/s/ Jacob Song
Counsel for Plaintiff

Date: October 11, 2018

/s/ John P. Costello
Counsel for Defendant

4
5
6
7

IT IS ORDERED that the forgoing Agreement is approved.

8
9
10
11

Dated: October 15, 2018
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
K UTAK R OCK LLP
ATTO RNEY S AT LAW
IRVINE

-5CASE NO. 2:17-CV-01372-WBS-CKD

STIPULATED ESI ORDER