Brixham Solutions LTD v. Juniper Networks, Inc.

Filing 31

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING DOCUMENT PRODUCTION PROTOCOL. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on 7/17/13. (klhS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/17/2013)

1
2
3
4

Jeff D. Friedman (173886)
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
BRIXHAM SOLUTIONS LTD.
Jonathan S. Kagan (166039)
IRELL & MANELLA LLP
1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

13
14
15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

17

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Rebecca L. Clifford (254105)
Nima Hefazi (272816)
IRELL & MANELLA LLP
840 Newport Center Drive, Suite 400
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.

16

18

Steve W. Berman (Pro Hac Vice)
Andrew M. Volk (Pro Hac Vice)
Mark S. Carlson (Pro Hac Vice)
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

BRIXHAM SOLUTIONS LTD., a British Virgin )
Islands International Business Company,
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v.
)
)
JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC., a Delaware
)
corporation,
)
)
Defendant. )
)
)

Civil Action No. C:13-00616-JCS
JOINT STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING
DOCUMENT PRODUCTION
PROTOCOL

26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
RE: DOCUMENT PRODUCTION PROTOCOL
005010-11 607589 V1

Case No. 13-00616-JCS

1
2
3
4

Plaintiff Brixham Solutions Ltd. and Defendant Juniper Networks, Inc. hereby submit the
following stipulation regarding document production in the above-mentioned case:
1.

Definitions and Scope. The following protocol and definitions shall control the

production of documents in this case. The following terms shall be defined:

5

(a)

“Document(s)” shall have the same meaning as used in the Federal Rules of

6

Civil Procedure and case law construing same, except that, for purposes of this Joint Stipulation

7

and Order, the term “Document(s)” shall not include source code or other information or items

8

designated as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – SOURCE CODE.” The format of production for

9

source code and other “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – SOURCE CODE” information or items shall

10

be governed by the Northern District of California’s Patent Local Rule 2-2 Interim Model

11

Protective Order or any other applicable Protective Order that the Court enters in this case.

12

(b)

“Receiving Party” shall mean the party receiving production of Documents

13

in response to any request for production of document(s) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.34(a) or any

14

other Federal or Local Rule.

15

(c)

“Producing Party” shall mean the party producing Documents in response to

16

any request for production of documents pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a) or any other Federal or

17

Local Rule.

18
19
20

2.

Production Format. Documents that are produced in this case, whether originally

stored in paper or electronic form, shall be produced in the following format:
(a)

Documents shall be produced in single-page 300 dpi CCITT Group 4 black

21

and white Tagged Image File Format (“TIFF”). The parties will accommodate reasonable requests

22

for production of specific images in color.

23
24
25

(b)

Documents shall be provided with (1) a Concordance delimited load file(s),

and (2) an Opticon delimited cross-reference file(s) showing document breaks.
(c)

For each document, a document-level text file shall be provided. The text of

26

ESI shall be extracted directly from the native file and each text file will be named for the

27

beginning Bates number of its corresponding document.

28
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
RE: DOCUMENT PRODUCTION PROTOCOL
-1
005010-11 607589 V1

-

Case No. 13-00616-JCS

1

(d)

To the extent possible, Documents shall be produced with the associated

2

OCR. Nothing in this agreement requires the Producing Party to ensure that the OCR is an exact

3

duplicate of the contents of the TIFF image. Moreover, no party shall be obligated to OCR ESI that

4

contains no extractable text.

5

(e)

The parties recognize that it may be appropriate for certain Documents to be

6

produced in native format. Therefore, the Producing Party may produce a Document in native

7

format at its discretion. The Receiving Party may also make reasonable requests that a Document

8

produced in the format described in 2(a) – (d) above be produced in native format. Prior to

9

producing any confidential information as defined in the Northern District of California’s Patent

10

Local Rule 2-2 Interim Model Protective Order or any other applicable Protective Order in native

11

format, the Producing Party and the Receiving Party shall meet and confer to establish additional

12

procedures, to the extent necessary, for the protection of the native information.

13

(f)

Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, the parties may use an alternative

14

format for certain Documents (e.g., PDF), if such Documents are not susceptible to production in

15

the format described above, if it would be unduly burdensome to produce the Documents in the

16

format described above, and/or if the circumstances of the particular production make it impractical

17

to comply with the formatting requirements. In the event that the Producing Party produces

18

documents in a format that differs from the format described in sections 2(a) – (d) above, and the

19

Receiving Party objects to the alternate format, the parties will meet and confer and attempt to

20

resolve any issue. If the parties cannot resolve the issue, it shall be presented to the Magistrate

21

Judge for prompt resolution pursuant to paragraph 8 of the Civil Standing Orders for Magistrate

22

Judge Joseph C. Spero.

23

3.

Document Unitization. When scanning paper documents, the parties shall undertake

24

reasonable efforts to ensure that distinct documents are not merged into a single record, and single

25

documents are not split into multiple records (i.e., the parties shall attempt to logically unitize

26

scanned hard copy documents). For electronic documents, the parties will make reasonable efforts

27

to maintain the relationship of documents in a document collection (e.g., cover letter and

28

enclosures, e-mail and attachments, or other documents where a parent-child relationship exists
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
RE: DOCUMENT PRODUCTION PROTOCOL
-2
005010-11 607589 V1

-

Case No. 13-00616-JCS

1

between the documents) through the scanning or conversion process from native format to TIFF,

2

such that at least one level of parent child relationship is preserved. Where practical, document

3

images generated from attachments to e-mails stored in Native Format shall be produced

4

contemporaneously and sequentially immediately after the parent e-mail.

5

4.

Duplicates. A Producing Party who has more than one identical copy of an

6

electronic document need only produce a single copy of that document. A Producing Party may

7

de-duplicate its production only by custodian unless otherwise agreed.

8
9

5.

Resolution of Production Issues. Documents that cannot be read because of

imaging or formatting problems shall be promptly identified by the Receiving Party. The

10

Producing Party and the Receiving Party shall meet and confer to attempt to resolve problem(s), to

11

the extent the problem(s) are within the parties’ control.

12

6.

Paper Documents Containing Fixed Notes. Paper Documents that contain fixed

13

notes shall be scanned with the notes affixed, if it can be done so in a manner so as not to obstruct

14

other content on the document. If the content of the Document is obscured by the affixed notes, the

15

Document and note shall be scanned separately.

16

7.

Privilege. The production of a privileged or work-product-protected document,

17

whether inadvertent or otherwise, is not a waiver of privilege or protection from discovery in this

18

case or in any other federal or state proceeding. For example, the mere production of privileged or

19

work-product-protected documents in this case as part of a mass production is not itself a waiver in

20

this case or in any other federal or state proceeding.

21

8.

Redactions. With respect to documents containing redacted text, no text under

22

section 2(c) above will be provided for the redacted portion. The producing party shall produce a

23

document-level text file for the document in its redacted form only, so that the non-redacted text will be

24

searchable. The failure to withhold such text for a redacted document by a Producing Party shall

25

not be deemed a waiver of the privilege associated with that Document.

26

9.

Metadata. The following metadata shall be provided within the Concordance

27

delimited file described above for each document to the extent the metadata exists and is

28

reasonably accessible:
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
RE: DOCUMENT PRODUCTION PROTOCOL
-3
005010-11 607589 V1

-

Case No. 13-00616-JCS

1

FIELD

DEFINITION

2

1.

BEGINBATES or
Prodbeg

3

2.

ENDBATES or
Prodend

3.

BEGATTACH or
Prodattachbeg

First Bates number of a family range (i.e., Bates
number of the first page of the parent email)

6

4.

ENDATTACH or
Prodattachend

Last Bates number of a family range (i.e., Bates
number of the last page of the last attachment)

7

5.

CUSTODIAN

6.

FILENAME

7.

HASHVALUE

10

8.

DOCTYPE

11

9.

LASTMODIFIED

4
5

8
9

Beginning Bates Number (production number)
Ending Bates Number (production number)

Name of person from whose files the document/data
is being produced
Filename associated with the document/data
MD5 Hash or SHA Value for Edocs
Document type (e.g., .doc, .pst, .ppt, .xls, .pdf)
Last Modified date

12
13
14
15

The following additional metadata shall be provided within the Concordance delimited file
described above for each email produced to the extent the metadata exists and is reasonably
accessible:
FIELD

16

DEFINITION

10.

FROM

17

11.

TO

Recipient

18

12.

CC

Additional Recipients

19

13.

BCC

Blind Additional Recipients

14.

SUBJECT

15.

DATESENT

Date sent

21

16.

TIMESENT

Time sent

22

17.

Parent-child
relationships

Attachment information for documents that are part
of a family

20

Sender

Subject line of Email

23
24

The Receiving Party may request additional metadata (such as the original file path of Documents) if it

25

would significantly aid the Receiving Party in understanding or using the Documents. To the extent

26

such additional metadata exists, the Producing Party shall not unreasonably withhold such metadata.

27
28

10.

Production Media. A Producing Party may produce Documents on CD-ROM,

DVD, external hard drive, or such other readily accessible computer or electronic media
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
RE: DOCUMENT PRODUCTION PROTOCOL
-4
005010-11 607589 V1

-

Case No. 13-00616-JCS

1

(“Production Media”). The Producing Party may also elect to produce Documents via email, FTP

2

website, or some other similar means. To the extent that a Producing Party produces Documents

3

on Production Media, the information that shall be identified on the face of the Production Media

4

shall include: (1) the production date, (2) the Bates number range of the Documents included on

5

the Production Media, and (3) the confidentiality notation required by the Protective Order entered

6

in this case, if applicable. If the Producing Party encrypts or “locks” the production, the Producing

7

Party shall provide the Receiving Party an explanation as to how to decrypt the files.

8
9

11.

Databases. To the extent discovery requires production of discoverable electronic

information in a database, the Producing Party may, at its option, produce exemplar reports from

10

the database in an image format described in paragraph 2 in lieu of producing the entire database in

11

native format or otherwise. Upon review of the exemplar reports, the Receiving Party may make

12

reasonable requests for production of the entire database in native format, for additional

13

information to explain the database scheme, codes, abbreviations, for different report formats, or

14

for specific data from indentified fields. The Producing Party shall not unreasonably deny such

15

requests.

16

12.

Discovery and Admissibility. Nothing herein shall be construed to affect the

17

discoverability or admissibility of any document or data. All objections to the discoverability or

18

admissibility of any document or data are preserved and may be asserted at any time.

19

13.

Cooperation and Dispute Resolution. To the extent that either party believes that

20

any provision in this protocol has become unduly burdensome or is otherwise unworkable, the

21

parties shall promptly meet and confer and attempt to resolve any issue. If the parties cannot

22

resolve the issue, it shall be presented to the Magistrate Judge for prompt resolution pursuant to

23

paragraph 8 of the Civil Standing Orders for Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero.

24

Dated: July 16, 2013

HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

25
_/s/ Steve W. Berman_______________________
Steve W. Berman (pro hac vice)
Andrew M. Volk (pro hac vice)
Mark S. Carlson (pro hac vice)

26
27
28

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
RE: DOCUMENT PRODUCTION PROTOCOL
-5
005010-11 607589 V1

-

Case No. 13-00616-JCS

Attorneys for Plaintiff
Brixham Solutions LTD.

1
2
3

Dated: July 16, 2013
IRELL & MANELLA LLP

4
5

___/s/ Rebecca L. Clifford___________________
Jonathan S. Kagan
Rebecca L. Clifford
Nima Hefazi

6
7
8

Attorneys for Defendant
Juniper Networks, Inc.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
RE: DOCUMENT PRODUCTION PROTOCOL
-6
005010-11 607589 V1

-

Case No. 13-00616-JCS

1

The above JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING
DOCUMENT PRODUCTION PROTOCOL is approved and all parties shall comply with its

3

provisions.

5

Spero
________________________________________
seph C.
Judge Jo
THE HONORABLE JOSEPH C. SPERO
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ER
C

A

H

7

LI

RT

FO

July 17, 2013
Dated: _________________________

NO

6

R NIA

UNIT
ED

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ISTRIC
ES D
TC
AT
T

RT
U
O

4

S

2

N

8

F
D IS T IC T O
R

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
RE: DOCUMENT PRODUCTION PROTOCOL
-7
005010-11 607589 V1

-

Case No. 13-00616-JCS