Strumlauf et al v. Starbucks Corporation

Filing 87

ORDER re: August 11, 2017 Status Conference. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 8/11/2017. (tehlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/11/2017)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

SIERA STRUMLAUF, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

5
6
7

v.
STARBUCKS CORPORATION,

Case No. 16-cv-01306-TEH
ORDER RE: AUGUST 11, 2017
STATUS CONFERENCE

Defendant.

8
9
10

On July 31, 2017, the Court held a further case management conference with the

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

parties. ECF No. 82. During this conference, it became apparent that the parties were

12

having a dispute regarding electronic discovery. The parties were given two weeks to

13

meet and confer to attempt to resolve the dispute and were instructed to be prepared to

14

discuss the result of their attempt(s) in a status conference scheduled for August 11, 2017.

15

In preparation for the status conference, both parties submitted supplemental statements

16

setting forth their position on the dispute. See ECF Nos. 83–84. During the August 11,

17

2017 status conference, the Plaintiffs agreed to partially accept the proposal set forth in

18

Starbucks’ supplemental statement. See ECF No. 84 at 3–4. More specifically, the parties

19

agree that Starbucks shall “process, search and review approximately 15 GB of additional

20

ESI in the form of email.” Id. at 4:19–20. The scope of the additional discovery shall be

21

as follows:

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Search Terms
Custodians and Dates
(“MENU*” OR ((“STORE*” OR “INSTORE*” Add custodian:
OR “RETAIL*”) w/50 (“SIGN*” OR
Lilia Tureo-Frick (3/2012 forward)
“DISPLAY*” OR “POINT OF SALE” OR
“POINT-OF-SALE” OR “POS” OR “POINT
OF PURCHASE” OR “POINTOFPURCHASE” OR “POP”))) AND
(“STANDARD*” OR “TIME” OR “TIMING”
OR “PERIOD*” OR “DATE*” OR
“COMMUNICAT*” OR “DISTRIBUT*” OR
“CONVEY*” OR “PUBLISH*” OR
“REPRESENT*” OR “CLAIM*” OR

1
2
3
4
5

“LANGUAGE” OR “MODIF*” OR
“CHANG*” OR “REMOV*” OR “REPLAC*”
OR “STOP*” OR “FLUID OUNCE*” OR “FL
OZ*” OR “FL. OZ*”)
(“LATTE*” OR “MOCHA*”) AND
(“PITCHER*” OR “SERVING*” OR “CUP*”
OR “RECIPE*” OR “FORMULA*”) AND
(“FILL*” OR “FILL-TO*” OR “LINE” OR
(“MILK” w/50 (“COST*” OR “EXPENSE*”)))

Conduct additional search from 1/1/09 to
3/2012 for Paul Camera and Debbie Antonio
Add custodians:
Wendy Lubahn (1/1-09 to present)
Alene Harris (1/1-09 to present)
Michele Prange (1/1-09 to present) Christine
McHugh(1/1-09 to present)
Lilia Tureo-Frick(1/1-09 to present)

6
7
8

Id. at 3–4. At the same time, the parties could not reach agreement on which party should
9

bear the costs of conducting the additional discovery, which is estimated to cost
10

approximately $4,500. Id. at 4:22. However, shortly after the status conference, Starbucks
United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

filed another supplemental statement agreeing to “incur the cost to collect and process the

12

subject email,” while reserving the right to seek to shift or recover any future costs related
13

to any additional requests for electronic discovery. ECF No. 86, at 2:6–9. In accordance
14

with the parties’ agreement, the Court also orders Starbucks to bear the costs related to
15

conducting the electronic discovery described above.
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19

Dated: 8/11/2017
20
21

_____________________________________
THELTON E. HENDERSON
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2