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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?