CSR Technology, Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.

Filing 34

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 33 ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 9/24/12. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/24/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Patrick T. Michael (SBN 169745)
[e-mail]
JONES DAY
555 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
David L. Witcoff (IL Bar No. 6183629)
(admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Timothy J. Heverin (IL Bar No. 6243107)
(admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Ryan M. Hubbard (IL Bar No. 6296777)
(admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Thomas W. Ritchie (IL Bar No. 6301954)
(admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
JONES DAY
77 W. Wacker Dr., Ste. 3500
Chicago, IL 60601-1692
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendant,
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.

15

MARK D. FOWLER, Bar No. 124235
[e-mail]
TIMOTHY LOHSE, Bar No. 177230
[e-mail]
MICHAEL G. SCHWARTZ, Bar No. 197010
[e-mail]
ERIK R. FUEHRER, Bar No. 252578
[e-mail]
SUMMER KRAUSE, Bar No. 264858
[e-mail]
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
2000 University Avenue
East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2214
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
TIFFANY MILLER, Bar No. 246987
[e-mail]
ROBERT WILLIAMS, Bar No. 246990
[e-mail]
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
401 B Street, Suite 1700
San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CSR TECHNOLOGY INC.

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

19
20

CSR TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Delaware
corporation,

21
Plaintiff,
22
v.

Case No. 3:12-cv-02619-RS
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING
ELECTRONICALLY STORED
INFORMATION

23
24

FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
a Delaware Corporation,
Defendant.

25
26
27
28

Plaintiff CSR Technology, Inc. and Defendant Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.,
(collectively, the “Parties”) by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree as
CHI-1862451v1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
REGARDING ELECTRONICALLY STORED
INFORMATION 3:12-cv-02619-RS

1

follows:

2

Production of Emails

3

1.

The Parties agree not to request production of e-mails from any of the other Parties

4

in this case, except that, any party, upon a showing of good cause, may request another party to

5

search and produce relevant e-mails of a specific custodian. The Parties are not prohibited from

6

producing e-mails. To the extent that e-mails are produced in this case, they may be utilized by

7

any party. The Parties agree that they will not “cherry pick” and only produce helpful emails

8

from certain custodians or on certain topics. To the extent a party voluntarily elects to produce

9

emails from a certain custodian or on a certain topic, that party, upon request, is obligated to

10

produce otherwise responsive emails from that certain custodian and/or emails on that certain

11

topic.

12

Form of Document Production

13

2.

Except as set forth in paragraph 8 below, the parties shall each produce responsive

14

and non-privileged electronic documents electronically as: (a) a Bates-stamped 300 dots per inch

15

(dpi) searchable multi-page PDF; (b) single-page Group IV .TIF images; or (c) Single Page TIF

16

images with a Concordance, Opticon, Summation and/or IPRO image load file containing

17

BegDoc, EndDoc numbers, or (d) native files. The party producing documents shall elect in

18

which form to produce. Color documents can be produced as black and white documents with the

19

option to get color documents if specifically requested and upon a showing of good cause by a

20

party.

21

3.

If a document is searchable in its native format, the producing party will produce it

22

in a searchable form upon a good faith request from the receiving party. Electronic documents

23

produced under paragraph 2(b) or 2(c) will be produced with extracted text. No party will be

24

obligated to render a document that is not searchable in its native format to searchable native

25

format for the purposes of producing the document. To the extent a producing party provides

26

electronically-produced files in searchable format, the receiving party accepts the files “as is,”

27

and the producing party accepts no liability as to the accuracy of searches conducted upon such

28

files.
CHI-1862451v1

-2-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
REGARDING ELECTRONICALLY STORED
INFORMATION 3:12-cv-02619-RS

1
2

4.

For electronic documents, an ASCII text delimited file shall be produced setting

forth the following metadata fields:

3

Beginning Document Bates Number

4

Ending Document Bates Number

5

Beginning Attachment Bates Number

6

Ending Attachment Bates Number

7

A party is not obligated to produce metadata from an electronic document unless requested by

8

another party for good cause. A party is never obligated to produce metadata from an electronic

9

document if metadata does not exist in the document or if the metadata is not machine-extractable.

10

5.

Scanned/paper documents should be produced in the same manner as electronic

11

documents identified in paragraphs 2 and 4. The documents should be logically unitized (i.e., to

12

preserve page breaks between documents and otherwise allow separate documents to be

13

identified). The producing party does not need to provide scanned/paper documents in text-

14

searchable or optical character recognition (OCR) format, unless the producing party already has

15

said scanned/paper documents in text-searchable or OCR format for its own litigation purposes.

16

The receiving party accepts the files “as is,” and the producing party accepts no liability as to the

17

accuracy of searches conducted upon such files.

18

6.

Excel or similar type spreadsheets should be produced in PDF or in native format.

19

In the event that a party requests the Excel spreadsheet in native form, the producing party shall

20

produce the document in native form.

21

Electronic Discovery

22

7.

No party need deviate from the practices it normally exercises with regard to

23

preservation of backup tapes and systems created for the sole purpose of disaster recovery that it

24

does not otherwise exercise when not in anticipation of litigation (e.g., recycling of back-up tapes

25

is permitted).

26

8.

If responsive documents are located on a centralized server or network, the

27

producing party shall not be required to search for additional copies of such responsive

28

documents that may be located on the personal computer, or otherwise in the possession, of
CHI-1862451v1

-3-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
REGARDING ELECTRONICALLY STORED
INFORMATION 3:12-cv-02619-RS

1

individual employees absent a showing of good cause that the production of such additional

2

copies is necessary. No party need deviate from the practices it normally exercises with regard to

3

preservation of such “additional copies” that it does not otherwise exercise when not in

4

anticipation of litigation (e.g., recycling of back-up tapes is permitted).

5

SO STIPULATED

6

Dated: September 19, 2012

7

DLA PIPER LLP (US)

8
By /s/ Erik Fuehrer
MARK D. FOWLER
TIMOTHY LOHSE
MICHAEL G. SCHWARTZ
ROBERT WILLIAMS
TIFFANY MILLER
ERIK R. FUEHRER
SUMMER KRAUSE

9
10
11
12
13

Attorneys for Plaintiff
CSR TECHNOLOGY INC.

14
15

Dated: September 19, 2012

16

JONES DAY

17
By /s/ Ryan Hubbard
Patrick T. Michael
David L. Witcoff (Pro Hac Vice)
Timothy J. Heverin (ProHac Vice)
Ryan M. Hubbard (Pro Hac Vice)
Thomas W. Ritchie (Pro Hac Vice)

18
19
20
21

Attorneys for Defendant
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.

22
23
24
25

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27

9/24
Dated: __________, 2012
THE HONORABLE RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

28
CHI-1862451v1

-4-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
REGARDING ELECTRONICALLY STORED
INFORMATION 3:12-cv-02619-RS