International Test Solutions, Inc v. MIPOX International Corporation et al

Filing 37

STIPULATION AND ORDER Re: Discovery of Electronically Stored Information for Patent Litigation. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 6/21/16. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/21/2016)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
Dean A. Morehous, Bar No. 111841
[e-mail]
Charanjit Brahma, Bar No. 204771
[e-mail]
Marcus T. Hall, Bar No. 206495
[e-mail]
580 California Street, 11th floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone:
415.477.5700
Facsimile:
415.477.5710
Attorneys for Plaintiff
INTERNATIONAL TEST SOLUTIONS, INC.

8
9
10
11
12

BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
Thomas J. Donovan (admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Roya Rahmanpour. Bar No. 285076
[e-mail]
2029 Century Park East, Suite 300
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone:
310. 284.3880
Facsimile:
310. 284.3894

13
14

Attorneys for Defendants
MIPOX INTERNATIONAL CORP.
and MGN INTERNATIONAL, INC.

15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18
19

INTERNATIONAL TEST SOLUTIONS,
INC.,

Case No. 3:16-cv-00791-RS

20
Plaintiff,
v.

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
RE: DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY
STORED INFORMATION FOR PATENT
LITIGATION

MIPOX INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION and MGN
INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Action Filed: February 17, 2016

21
22
23

Case Management Hearing: May 26, 2016

24
Defendant.
25
26
27
28
T ROU T MA N S ANDE RS LLP
580 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 1100
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104

28567565

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE:
ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00791-RS

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 inexpensive

4

determination” of this action, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1.

5

2.

This Order may be modified in the Court’s discretion or by stipulation.

6

3.

As in all cases, costs may be shifted for disproportionate ESI production requests

7

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Likewise, a party’s nonresponsive or dilatory

8

discovery tactics are cost-shifting considerations.

9
10

4.

and reduce costs will be considered in cost-shifting determinations.

11
12

A party’s meaningful compliance with this Order and efforts to promote efficiency

5.

The parties are expected to comply with the District’s E-Discovery Guidelines

(“Guidelines”).

13

6.

General ESI production requests under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 34 and 45

14

shall not include email or other forms of electronic correspondence (collectively “email”). To

15

obtain email parties must propound specific email production requests.

16
17

7.

Email production requests shall only be propounded for specific issues, rather than

general discovery of a product or business.

18

8.

Email production requests shall be phased to occur after the parties have exchanged

19

initial disclosures and basic documentation about the patents, the prior art, the accused

20

instrumentalities, and the relevant finances. While this provision does not require the production of

21

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

22

efficient and economical streamlining of the case.

23

9.

Email production requests shall identify the custodian, search terms, and time

24

frame. The parties shall cooperate to identify the proper custodians, proper search terms and proper

25

timeframe as set forth in the Guidelines.

26

10.

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

27

custodians per producing party for all such requests. The parties may jointly agree to modify this

28

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

T ROU T MA N S ANDE RS LLP
580 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 1100
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104

28567565

-1-

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE:
ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00791-RS

1

custodians, upon showing a distinct need based on the size, complexity, and issues of this specific

2

case. Cost-shifting may be considered as part of any such request.

3

11.

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

4

search terms per custodian per party. The parties may jointly agree to modify this limit without the

5

Court’s leave. The Court shall consider contested requests for additional search terms per

6

custodian, upon showing a distinct need based on the size, complexity, and issues of this specific

7

case. The Court encourages the parties to confer on a process to test the efficacy of the search terms.

8

The search terms shall be narrowly tailored to particular issues. Indiscriminate terms, such as the

9

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

10

search criteria that sufficiently reduce the risk of overproduction. A conjunctive combination of

11

multiple words or phrases (e.g., “computer” and “system”) narrows the search and shall count as a

12

single search term. A disjunctive combination of multiple words or phrases (e.g., “computer” or

13

“system”) broadens the search, and thus each word or phrase shall count as a separate search term

14

unless they are variants of the same word. Use of narrowing search criteria (e.g., “and,” “but not,”

15

“w/x”) is encouraged to limit the production and shall be considered when determining whether to

16

shift costs for disproportionate discovery. Should a party serve email production requests with

17

search terms beyond the limits agreed to by the parties or granted by the Court pursuant to this

18

paragraph, this shall be considered in determining whether any party shall bear all reasonable costs

19

caused by such additional discovery.

20

12.

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

21

review and other techniques insofar as their use improves the efficacy of discovery. Such topics

22

should be discussed pursuant to the District’s E-Discovery Guidelines.

23

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

24

Dated: June 21, 2016

TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP

25
26

By: /s/ Charanjit Brahma
Charanjit Brahma
Attorneys for Plaintiff
International Test Solutions, Inc.

27
28
T ROU T MA N S ANDE RS LLP
580 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 1100
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104

28567565

-2-

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE:
ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00791-RS

1

Dated: June 21, 2016

BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

2
3

By: /s/ Roya Rahmanpour
Thomas J. Donovan
Roya Rahmanpour
Attorneys for Defendants
Mipox International Corporation and MGN
International, Inc.

4
5
6

CONCURRENCE IN FILING

7

I, Charanjit Brahma, hereby attest that the concurrence to the filing of this document has

8
9

been obtained from each signatory hereto.

10
11

Dated: June 21, 2016

/s/ Charanjit Brahma
Charanjit Brahma

12
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15

Dated: 6/21/16

16

____________________________________
Richard Seeborg
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
T ROU T MA N S ANDE RS LLP
580 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 1100
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104

28567565

-3-

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE:
ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY
CASE NO. 3:16-CV-00791-RS