AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. v. Integral Consulting, Inc. et al

Filing 62

ORDER REGARDING INITIAL STEPS TO RESOLVE DISCOVERY DISPUTE, Dkt. Nos. 55 58 59 . Signed by Judge Nathanael Cousins on 11/7/13. (lmh, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2013)

1 Matthew F. Miller, Bar No. 172661
[e-mail]
2 Robert J. Nolan, Bar No. 235738
[e-mail]
3 Aengus H. Carr, Bar No. 240953
[e-mail]
4 CARROLL, BURDICK & McDONOUGH LLP
Attorneys at Law
5 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 400
San Francisco, California 94104
6 Telephone:
415.989.5900
Facsimile:
415.989.0932
7
Attorneys for Plaintiff AMEC Environment &
8 Infrastructure, Inc.
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

11
12 AMEC ENVIRONMENT &
INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.,
13
Plaintiff,
14
v.
15
INTEGRAL CONSULTING, INC.,
16 EDWARD P. CONTI, an individual,
MATTHEW HILLYARD, an individual,
17
Defendants.
18

Case No. CV 12-01735 SC (NC)
[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING INITIAL
STEPS TO RESOLVE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
Re: Dkt. Nos. 55, 58-59

19
20

This order provides the initial actions to be performed by Defendant Integral Consulting,

21 Inc. (“Integral”) following hearing on November 6, 2013. On October 18, 2013, October 25, 2013
22 and October 30, 2013, the parties filed letter briefs concerning AMEC’s turnover demands for
23 documents obtained by the individual defendants during employment with AMEC and retained
24 thereafter and related discovery. Dkt. Nos. 55, 58-59. In order to educate AMEC and the Court
25 concerning those documents contained on devices identified by Integral as responsive to AMEC’s
26 subject discovery, the Court ORDERS as follows:
27 

Within two (2) days of the issuance of this order, Defendants will make available for

28

inspection by FTI Consulting (“the Consultant”) each of the electronic media storage

CARROLL, BURDICK &
MCDONOUGH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

CBM-SF\SF607596-1

Case No. CV 12-01735 SC (NC)
[PROPOSED] ORDER

1

devices identified in Defendant’s Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. 9

2

(“Devices.”)

3 

With the exception of those two (2) Devices for which Integral represents that all

4

documents contained thereon have previously been produced to the Plaintiff, the

5

Consultant shall examine each Device and will, within five (5) business days of receipt of

6

the Devices from Defendants, provide the parties with an identical report identifying each

7

Device, the actions that the Consultant took with respect to each Device, and an index of

8

all files contained on each Device (the “File Index.”)

9 

The File Index will include entries for all files contained on each Device, including any

10

deleted or overwritten files identifiable from an examination of the Device’s Master File

11

Table or other Master Index, where one exists. Compressed or container files, including

12

but not limited to, ”.PST” and “.ZIP” files will be extracted into their component member

13

files (such as “.msg” files) and a record for each component file entered in the File Index.

14 

The File Index will be compiled in MS Excel format with distinct columns for each of the

15

following metadata fields (as appropriate for each record in the File Index):

16



Device make, model, serial number and size

17



Custodian

18



Title

19



File name

20



File path

21



PST folder

22



File extension

23



File size

24



From or Sender (including domain)

25



To (including domain)

26



CC

27



BCC

28



Subject

CARROLL, BURDICK &
MCDONOUGH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

CBM-SF\SF607596-1

-2[PROPOSED] ORDER

Case No. CV 12-01735 SC (NC)

1



Attachment Count

2



Date Sent

3



Date Received

4



Date Created

5



Date Last Accessed

6



Date Modified

7



Date Last Printed

8



Author

9 

With respect to those two (2) Devices from which Integral has represented that all

10

documents have previously been produced to Plaintiff, Integral will within five (5) days of

11

the issuance of this order, provide Plaintiff with an index of the production Bates numbers

12

of those documents previously produced, identifying the Device from which said

13

documents were produced.

14 

Defendants are responsible for any and all fees, costs and expenses associated with the

15

Consultant’s examination of the Devices and production of the report to the parties.

16
IT IS SO ORDERED.

ER

H

24

than
Judge Na

25

ael M. Co

us

FO

RT

23

R NIA

HONORABLE NATHANAEL COUSINS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ins

NO

22

TED
GRAN

LI

21

UNIT
ED

20

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

7
19 DATED: November ___, 2013

S

18

A

17

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

26
27
28
CARROLL, BURDICK &
MCDONOUGH LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

CBM-SF\SF607596-1

-3[PROPOSED] ORDER

Case No. CV 12-01735 SC (NC)