Garrison et al v. Whole Foods Market California, Inc. et al

Filing 61

Order by Hon. Vince Chhabria granting 60 Stipulation re Treatment of ESI.(knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/15/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
Jay W. Connolly (SBN 114725)
[e-mail]
Giovanna A. Ferrari (SBN 229871)
[e-mail]
Joseph J. Orzano (SBN 262040)
[e-mail]
560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendants
WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA, INC. and
MRS. GOOCH’S NATURAL FOOD MARKETS,
INC.

9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13
14

MARY GARRISON and GRACE
GARRISON, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,

15

Case No. 3:14-CV-00334-VC
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER RE: TREATMENT OF ESI

Plaintiffs,
16
v.
17
18

WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA,
INC., et al.,

19

Defendants.

20
Plaintiffs MARY GARRISON and GRACE GARRISON, individually, and on behalf of

21
22

all others similarly situated (collectively “Plaintiffs”), on the one hand, and Defendants WHOLE

23

FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA, INC. and MRS. GOOCH’S NATURAL FOOD MARKETS,

24

INC. (collectively “Defendants”), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby enter into

25

the following stipulation regarding electronic discovery (“eDiscovery”) issues in this case:

26

I.

PURPOSE

27

Defendants represent that their preservation efforts for this action have resulted in the

28

retention and ongoing storage of substantial amounts of electronically stored information, as

Stipulation Regarding Treatment of ESI and [Proposed] Order / Case No. 3:14-cv-00334-VC

1

defined in Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1), (the “ESI”). Defendants believe the vast majority of the ESI

2

is not relevant to any claim or defense in this action. Defendants therefore seek to establish a

3

reasonable protocol for treatment this ESI so that they need not continue to preserve the

4

substantial amounts of data that have no relevance to this action.

5

II.

6

DESIGNATION OF E-DISCOVERY LIAISON
To promote communication and cooperation between the Parties, each party shall

7

designate an eDiscovery Liaison. The eDiscovery Liaison will serve as a conduit of

8

communications regarding eDiscovery issues among the Parties including specific topics such

9

as: (1) the party’s electronic systems and capabilities in order to explain these systems and

10

answer relevant questions; (2) the technical aspects of eDiscovery, including ESI storage,

11

organization, and format issues;(3) eDiscovery dispute resolution; and (4) general facilitation of

12

the eDiscovery process.

13

III.

PRESERVATION

14

The parties have discussed their preservation obligations and needs and agree that

15

preservation of potentially relevant ESI will be reasonable and proportionate. Plaintiffs represent

16

that they have retained relevant ESI in their possession, custody, or control. Defendants

17

represent that they have issued ESI retention notices to appropriate custodians and have

18

undertaken reasonable efforts to preserve relevant ESI in their possession, custody or control.

19

IV.

20

DEVELOPMENT OF SEARCH TERMS
In an effort to cull the broadly preserved ESI down to a reasonable, manageable and cost-

21

effective review corpus, the Parties agree that certain filters should be applied to all preserved

22

data in order to identify the ESI most likely to contain highly relevant data.

23

To this end, the Parties will attempt to develop a search methodology to locate potentially

24

relevant information from the preserved ESI. The Parties shall reach agreement as to the words,

25

terms, phrases and syntax to be searched.

26

The Parties agree to the following process for the development of search terms:

27

•

28

On or before 30 days after entry of this Order, Defendants shall provide to
Plaintiffs a proposed list of search terms and any related parameters.
2

Stipulation Regarding Treatment of ESI and [Proposed] Order / Case No. 3:14-cv-00334-VC

1

•

On or before 15 days after receipt of Defendants’ proposed list of search terms

2

and related parameters, Plaintiffs shall provide any proposed changes.

3

•

On or before 15 days after receipt of Plaintiffs’ proposed changes, Defendants

4

shall respond to Plaintiffs indicating agreement or disagreement as to any changes

5

proposed by Plaintiffs.

6

•

On or before 10 days after Defendants’ response, the Parties shall submit a joint

7
8
9
10

letter brief to the Court outlining any disagreements, should any remain.
V.

SEARCH TERM METHODOLOGY
A.

General Approach

In general, the process of review and production will consist of (1) loading of ESI within

11

the scope of relevant materials by agreement of the Parties; (2) further refinement through key

12

word searching and culling; (3) review by the producing party; and (4) identification by the

13

producing party of responsive, non-privileged ESI; and (5) production of responsive non-

14

privileged ESI to the other Parties.

15

The Parties acknowledge and agree that any information identified as a “hit” based upon

16

the search will be considered only potentially responsive. The Parties at their option may

17

produce any “hits” with or without attorney review to determine actual responsiveness and

18

whether any basis exists for withholding the document such as attorney-client privilege or

19

attorney work product.

20

B.

21

To reduce the likelihood of false search hits that may skew keyword search hit counts,

File Type/Extension Filters

22

cause the review of non-reviewable documents, and increase costs of review and production, the

23

Parties agree to limit the processing, review, and production of loose file and email attachment

24

data to commonly known user-created ESI file types/extensions, to wit:

25
pdf

dotm

xlam

csv

rtf

dotx

xls

pages

26
27
28
3
Stipulation Regarding Treatment of ESI and [Proposed] Order / Case No. 3:14-cv-00334-VC

1
txt

pot

xlsm

keynote

msg

potm

xlsx

numbers

eml

potx

xlt

jpeg

emlx

ppa

xltm

jpg

wpd

ppam

xltx

png

mpp

pps

mpp

gif

zip

ppsm

wk3

bmp

rar

ppsx

wk4

ai

7z

ppt

pub

psd

doc

pptm

pubx

eps

docm

pptx

pubm

docx

rtf

tif

dot

vsd

tiff

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

C.

Cached Data, Residual Data, RAM and Fragmented Data

22

Absent a showing of special need and lack of undue burden or cost, the Parties shall have

23

no obligation to review or produce deleted, shadowed, fragmented, residual data, or documents,

24

cached, temporary files, random access memory (“RAM”) or ESI that would only be preserved

25

by taking constant and repeated forensic (bit stream) image of hard drives and computer memory

26

sticks, neither of which is practical technically or economically.

27

D.

Other Forms of Electronically Stored Information

28

The scope of Defendants’ identification and preservation efforts included custodians’
4
Stipulation Regarding Treatment of ESI and [Proposed] Order / Case No. 3:14-cv-00334-VC

1

voice mail as well as cell phone voicemail, cell phone text/instant messages. Absent further

2

agreement of the Parties or a showing of good cause and a lack of undue burden or cost, the

3

Parties shall have no further obligation to review or produce ESI regarding or relating to (1)

4

text/instant messaging communications; (2) voicemail messages and system information

5

including VOIP data; (3) web browser files; (4) personal digital assistants (“PDAs”); and (5)

6

mobile devices including, but not limited to, smartphone devices.

7

E.

8

On-site inspections of electronic media under Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b) shall not be permitted,

9

On-Site Inspections

except on mutual agreement of the Parties or upon ruling of the Court following a showing of

10

exceptional circumstances including good cause and specific need. Inspection or testing of

11

certain types of ESI may raise issues of confidentiality or privacy and such undue intrusiveness

12

resulting from such inspections shall be guarded against.

13

F.

14

Absent compelling circumstances and upon notice, any message, attachment or other

Spam and/or Virus Filtering

15

electronically stored information that has been identified by a spam or virus filter shall be treated

16

by the Parties as per se non-responsive and the Parties shall not be required to produce such ESI.

17

VI.

PRODUCTION METHODOLOGY

18

A.

19

The Stipulated Protective Order entered in this case, (Dkt. 52), provided that, with the

Form of Production

20

exception of documents to be produced in native format, documents shall be produced in single-

21

page Tagged Image Format image files (“TIFF”) named with sequential Bates numbering with

22

each page branded in the lower right-hand corner with sequential bates numbering. At Plaintiffs’

23

subsequent request, Defendants will endeavor to provide said documents in Portable Document

24

Format (“PDF”) instead and will meet and confer with Plaintiffs if they deem that not feasible

25

for any particular production. Spreadsheets, PowerPoint presentations, multimedia (i.e., audio

26

and video), and similar files shall be produced in native file format named with sequential Bates

27

numbering, except where image/PDF format is required for purposes of redaction. For all

28

documents produced in native format, a single-paged placeholder with Bates numbers shall be
5
Stipulation Regarding Treatment of ESI and [Proposed] Order / Case No. 3:14-cv-00334-VC

1

provided. Each production shall be accompanied by a corresponding electronic delimited text

2

file using Concordance standard delimiters (“Concordance DAT files”), OPT and/or LFP image

3

load files, and separate text files containing each document’s extracted text or text generated

4

through Optical Character Recognition (“OCR”). OCR text will only be provided for documents

5

with redactions or documents that are hard copy in origin, but all other text will be extracted text.

6

When available as part of normal processing, ESI productions shall also include available

7

metadata as listed in Exhibit B to the Stipulated Protective Order.

8

B.

9

During the processing of documents or ESI for production it may become apparent that

Non-Standard File Handling in Production

10

some file types are not easily converted from native format into image/PDF files. In such

11

circumstances, the Parties agree to confer on an appropriate native file protocol. After initial

12

production in image/PDF file format is complete, the requesting Party must demonstrate

13

particularized need for production of electronic documents in their native format. If the Parties

14

are unable to come to an agreement, the Parties agree to seek appropriate relief form the Court

15

through further stipulation or otherwise.

16

C.

17

Nothing herein alters the provisions governing the production of metadata as set forth in

18

Metadata Production

Exhibit B of the Stipulated Protective Order.

19

D.

20

Provisions regarding “claw back” and “non-waiver” shall be in accordance with Fed. R.

Claw-back Provision and Non-Waiver Agreement

21

Civ. P. 26 (b)(5), Fed. R. Evid. 502, and paragraph 11 of the Parties’ Stipulated Protective Order

22

entered in this case. The Parties and the Court recognize that the significant amount of ESI

23

involved increases the possibility of inadvertent production of materials to which the producing

24

Party may make a claim of privilege or of protection from discovery as trial preparation material

25

or some other asserted right. The inadvertent production of such documents or ESI shall not

26

operate as a waiver of that privilege, protection or right and shall not operate as any subject

27

matter waiver of that privilege, protection or right.

28
6
Stipulation Regarding Treatment of ESI and [Proposed] Order / Case No. 3:14-cv-00334-VC

1
2

VII.

RELIEF FROM COURT
If the Parties are unable to agree, or need further clarification on any issue relating to the

3

preservation, collection, or production of electronically stored information, any Party may seek

4

appropriate relief from the Court through further stipulation or otherwise.

5

IT IS SO STIPULATED BY COUNSEL OF RECORD.

6
DATED: April 10, 2015

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

7
By: /s/ Jay W. Connolly
Jay W. Connolly
Giovanna A. Ferrari
Joseph J. Orzano

8
9
10

Attorneys for Defendants
WHOLE FOODS MARKET CALIFORNIA,
INC. and MRS. GOOCH’S NATURAL FOOD
MARKETS, INC.

11
12
13

DATED: April 10, 2015

SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC
By: /s/ Molly A. Desario
Matthew R. Bainer
Molly a. DeSario

14
15

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MARY GARRISON and GRACE
GARRISON, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated

16
17
18
19
20

[PROPOSED] ORDER
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

April 14, 2015
DATED: _________________
HON. VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Court Judge

23
24

19599416v.1

25
26
27
28
7
Stipulation Regarding Treatment of ESI and [Proposed] Order / Case No. 3:14-cv-00334-VC