Ron Alul et al v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc.

Filing 77

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 75 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION filed by Melissa Yeung, Donald Tran, Arpan Srivastava, Yun-Fei Lou, Mark Gerstle, Charles Burgess, Don Awtrey, John Kelly, Lindsey Aberin, Daniel Criner, Rebecca Gray, Jordan Moss. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on April 3, 2017. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/3/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Livia M. Kiser (SBN 285411)
[e-mail]
Michael C. Andolina (admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Andrew J. Chinsky (admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Kristen E. Rau (pro hac vice to be filed)
[e-mail]
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
One South Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60603
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Eric B. Schwartz (SBN 266554)
[e-mail]
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, California 90013
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Christopher A. Seeger (admitted pro hac vice)
Stephen Weiss (admitted pro hac vice)
Scott A. George (admitted pro hac vice)
Daniel R. Leathers (admitted pro hac vice)
SEEGER WEISS LLP
77 Water Street, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Steve W. Berman (admitted pro hac vice)
Catherine Y.N. Gannon (admitted pro hac vice)
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, Washington 98101
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

13

Attorneys for Defendant American Honda
Motor Co., Inc.

14

Additional Counsel on Signature Page

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
LINDSEY ABERIN, DON AWTREY,
DANIEL CRINER, JARED CROOKS,
REBECCA GRAY, MARK GERSTLE,
JOHN KELLY, YUN-FEI LOU, JORDAN
Case No. 3:16-cv-04384-JST
MOSS, DONALD TRAN, ARPAN
SRIVASTAVA, DONALD TRAN, and
MELISSA YEUNG, individually and on
[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING
behalf of all others similarly situated.
ELECTRONICALLY STORED

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiffs,
v.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO.,
INC.,
Defendant.

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed
Classes and Subclasses

INFORMATION

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

1. PURPOSE
This Order will govern discovery of electronically stored information (“ESI”) in this
case as a supplement to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court’s Guidelines for the
Discovery of Electronically Stored Information, and any other applicable orders and rules.
2. COOPERATION
The Parties are aware of the importance the Court places on cooperation and commit to
cooperate in good faith throughout the matter consistent with this Court’s Guidelines for the
Discovery of ESI.
3. LIAISON
The Parties have identified liaisons to each other who are and will be knowledgeable

11

about and responsible for discussing their respective ESI. Plaintiffs’ liaison will be Scott Alan

12

George. Plaintiffs are referred to collectively herein as a “Party.” Defendant American Honda

13

Motor Co. Inc.’s (“AHM’s”) liaison will be Andrew Chinsky. Each e-discovery liaison will

14

be, or have access to those who are, knowledgeable about the technical aspects of e-discovery,

15

including the location, nature, accessibility, format, collection, search methodologies, and

16

production of ESI in this matter. The Parties will rely on the liaisons, as needed, to confer

17

about ESI and to help resolve disputes without court intervention.

18
19

4. PRESERVATION
The Parties have discussed their preservation obligations and needs and agree that

20

preservation of potentially-relevant ESI will be reasonable and proportionate. To reduce the

21

costs and burdens of preservation and to ensure proper ESI is preserved, the Parties agree to

22

the following:

23
24
25
26
27

a) Within 30 days after entry of this Protocol, each Party shall provide to the other
Party: (1) a description of each Party’s potentially responsive data sources,
including databases that are likely to contain responsive information, (2) a list of
individual custodians whose reasonably-accessible emails and other ESI (as
applicable) will be searched in accordance with this Order. Custodians shall

28

2

1
2
3
4
5

initially be identified by name, whether they are current or former employees and
by general job titles or descriptions (e.g. “marketing manager”). For each of its
custodians, the Party will confirm the custodian is subject to the preservation hold
that the Party has implemented in this case.
b) The Parties will agree on the number of custodians per Party for whom ESI will be

6
preserved after they exchange the information set forth in Paragraph 4 a) above.
7
The Parties may add or remove custodians by mutual agreement.
8
c) Among the sources of data the Parties agree are not reasonably accessible because
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

of undue burden or cost pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B), the Parties agree
they are under no obligation to preserve or make production from the following
categories of information unless and until: (1) a Party provides written notice to the
other Party identifying a specific category or categories the Party in good faith
believes the ESI should begin to be preserved or discovered as well as the reasons,
including the Party’s basis for believing its request(s) are proportional to the needs
of the case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1); and (2) either (i) mutual agreement
of the Parties, or (ii) a finding of good cause by the Court that such ESI should be
preserved or discovered (which the Parties acknowledge may involve cost-sharing
or cost-shifting, as applicable):

19
20

i.

purposes of disaster recovery, including (but not limited to) backup tapes, disks,

21

SAN, and other forms of media, and that are substantially duplicative of data

22

that are more accessible elsewhere, and the Parties agree that no Party shall be

23

required to modify or suspend procedures, including rotation of backup media,

24

used in the normal course of business to back up data and systems for disaster

25

recovery purposes unless first ordered to do so by the Court; and

26
27

Backup data files that are maintained in the normal course of business for

ii.

For purposes of this Paragraph 4 (c), the Parties agree that deletion of ESI in the
normal course of business before the time the preservation obligation in this

28

3

1

litigation came into effect is not sufficient grounds for the other Party to seek to

2
3
4
5

preserve or discover any information identified in 4 (c)(i) or 4 c)(ii).
d) Among the sources of data the Parties agree are not reasonably accessible, the
Parties agree not to preserve or discover the following:
i.

6
7

obligation in this matter came into effect;
ii.

8
9

iii.

Random access memory (RAM) , temporary files, or other ephemeral data
that are difficult to preserve without disabling the operating system;

iv.

12
13

Deleted, “slack,” fragmented, or unallocated data only accessible by
forensics;

10
11

ESI deleted in the normal course of business before the time a preservation

Data in metadata fields frequently updated automatically, such as lastopened or last-printed dates;

v.

14

Electronic data temporarily stored by laboratory equipment or attached
electronic equipment, provided that such data is not ordinarily preserved as

15
part of a laboratory report;

16
17

vi.

Voicemail, text message and instant messages that are not substantively

18

related to the products at issue in this matter and that are not retained in the

19

ordinary course of business;

20

vii.

Server, system, network, or software application logs;

21

viii.

Structural files not material to individual file contents (e.g. .CSS, .XSL,
.XML, .DTD, etc.); and

22
23

ix.

history files, cache files, and cookies.

24
25
26
27
28

On-line access data such as (without limitation) temporary internet files,

5. SEARCH
The Parties agree to the employ the following processes and parameters for
searching ESI:
a) To contain costs in the identification of relevant ESI for review and production, the

4

1
2
3
4

Parties may meet and confer to discuss either the use of reasonable search terms,
file types, and date ranges or the use of advanced search and retrieval technologies,
such as predictive coding or other technology-assisted review.
b) AHM will propose a list of search terms to Plaintiffs by April 24, 2017. Plaintiffs

5

will meet and confer with AHM by May 15, 2017. Agreement on search terms will

6

be completed promptly, but such agreement will not itself prevent either Party from

7

seeking additional search terms later subject to the other Party’s agreement or the

8

Court’s intervention, provided such search terms are proportional to the needs of the

9

case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

10

i.

Plaintiffs and AHM will use the initial agreed-upon search terms to search

11

their ESI and electronic mail accounts, as applicable, and shall retrieve,

12

review and produce documents in accordance with this Order without

13

seeking contribution or cost recovery from the non-producing Party.

14

ii.

Should either AHM or Plaintiffs request subsequent and/or additional term

15

searches, the Parties will discuss whether cost-sharing or shifting for such

16

searches is appropriate, and shall seek guidance from the Court to the extent

17

they cannot agree.

18

c) The fact that any document has been identified by agreed-upon searches terms shall

19

not prevent any Party from withholding such file from production on the grounds

20

that the document is not discoverable, including because it is not responsive, that it

21

is protected from disclosure by applicable privilege or immunity, that it is governed

22

by the European Data Privacy Directive or other applicable privacy law or

23

regulation, that it contains commercially sensitive or proprietary non-responsive

24

information, that the Protective Order entered in this Action allows the file to be

25
26
27
28

withheld, or otherwise.
d) Nothing in this section shall limit a Party's right reasonably to seek agreement from
the other Parties or a court ruling to modify previously agreed-upon search terms or
procedures for advanced search and retrieval technologies.

5

1
2
3
4
5

6. PRODUCTION FORMATS
The Parties agree to produce documents in the formats set forth in Exhibit 1 and
Schedule A thereto.
7. PHASING
The Parties will produce non-confidential documents in advance of the entry of a

6

confidentiality protective order. After a protective order is entered, the Parties will produce

7

confidential documents subject to the protective order.

8
9

8. DOCUMENTS PROTECTED FROM DISCOVERY
a) Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502(d), the production of a privileged or work-product-

10

protected document, whether inadvertent or otherwise, is not a waiver of privilege

11

or protection from discovery in this case or in any other federal or state proceeding.

12

For example, the mere production of privileged or work-product-protected

13

documents in this case as part of a mass production is not itself a waiver in this case

14

or in any other federal or state proceeding.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

b) Communications involving a Party’s counsel or any of its agents that post-date the
filing of the original complaint need not be placed on a privilege log.
9. MODIFICATION
This Stipulated Order may be modified by a Stipulated Order of the Parties or by the
Court for good cause shown.
IT IS SO STIPULATED, through Counsel of Record.
Dated: March 31, 2017

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

/s/ Christopher A. Seeger
Christopher A. Seeger (admitted pro hac vice)
Stephen Weiss (admitted pro hac vice)
Scott A. George (admitted pro hac vice)
Daniel R. Leathers (admitted pro hac vice)
SEEGER WEISS LLP
77 Water Street, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

/s/ Livia M. Kiser
Livia M. Kiser (SBN 285411)
[e-mail]
Michael C. Andolina (admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Andrew J. Chinsky (admitted pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
One South Dearborn
Chicago, IL 60603

6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Steve W. Berman (admitted pro hac vice)
Catherine Y.N. Gannon (admitted pro hac vice)
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, Washington 98101
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Eric B. Schwartz (SBN 266554)
[e-mail]
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, California 90013
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant American Honda
Motor Co., Inc.

Roland Tellis (SBN 186269)
Mark Pifko (SBN 228412)
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
Encino, California 91436
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
James E. Cecchi (admitted pro hac vice)
Lindsey H. Taylor (admitted pro hac vice)
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN,
BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

21
22

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed
Classes and Subclasses

23
24
25
26

IT IS ORDERED that the forgoing Agreement is approved.
Dated: April 3, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT/MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28

7

1

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION

2

I am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used to file the

3

foregoing Stipulation. In compliance with Civil Local Rule 5.1, I hereby attest that the signatory

4
has concurred in this filing.
5
6
7

Dated: March 31, 2017

By: /s/ Christopher A. Seeger
Christopher A. Seeger

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

8

1
2
3

Exhibit 1: ESI Production Protocol
A. De-Duplication of Identical User Files
All non-email documents (“User Files”) will be de-duplicated, across custodians, prior to

4

production. “De-duplicated across custodians” means that exact duplicates of documents, as

5

identified by MD5 hash value, held by a particular custodian and residing with another

6

custodian, will not be produced. Custodians of a de-duplicated document will be noted in the

7

metadata as “Duplicate Custodians” as set forth in Schedule A, and to the extent technically

8

feasible and not unduly burdensome, any additional metadata associated with a Duplicate

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Custodian’s copy will be linked to that custodian.
B. De-Duplication of Identical E-Mails
The Parties are permitted to de-duplicate identical e-mails and their attachments using
MD5 hash technology, across custodians. Custodians of a de-duplicated e-mail will be noted in
the metadata as “Duplicate Custodians” as set forth in Schedule A, and to the extent technically
feasible and not unduly burdensome, any additional metadata associated with a Duplicate
Custodian’s copy will be linked to that custodian.
C. Thread De-duplication of E-Mails
For emails, “thread de-duplicates” will be removed from production. In order for an
email to be suppressed as a “thread duplicate,” it must be wholly contained in the later, surviving

18
email, and have all of the same recipients and attachments.
19
D. De-Nisting of Electronically Stored Data
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The Parties may remove known operating system files and program files prior to
conducting searches of data, and may also remove files in accordance with the NSRL De-Nisting
Process.
E. Redactions
To the extent a document is produced in redacted form, any redactions shall be clearly
indicated on the face of the document, each redacted portion of the document from which
information is redacted shall bear a designation that it has been redacted, stating the fact of
redaction over the redacted portion of the document with the word “REDACTION” and a brief
description of the reason (i.e., “PRIVILEGE,”“PII” (defined below), “NON RELEVANT”), and

9

1
2
3

a metadata field accompanying the document production shall indicate that the document
contains redactions to the extent technically feasible and not unduly burdensome. Where a
responsive document contains both redacted and non-redacted content, the producing Party shall

4

produce the remainder of the non-redacted portions of the document. The production of a

5

document in a redacted form does not affect the producing Party’s obligation to properly

6

document and substantiate the assertion of privilege over the content on a privilege log.

7

Redacted documents shall be produced in TIFF image format except for Excel and Access

8

documents, which shall be produced in redacted native format. Redacted PowerPoint documents

9

may be produced in native upon request in a manner that will prevent disclosure of privileged

10

information provided it is technically feasible and not unduly burdensome to do so.

11

To the extent there is significant, non-relevant proprietary material about other vehicles

12

within an otherwise responsive document, and it’s not demonstrably burdensome to the non-

13

producing Party, the non-relevant, proprietary material will be redacted, and a log describing the

14

category of the irrelevant content of the redacted material (e.g., Non Relevant – Proprietary Info

15

Non-Acura Vehicles) will be provided. A document containing relevancy redactions with the

16

relevancy redactions removed shall be made available once for inspection at the request of the

17

non-producing Party at a mutually-agreeable time and place. If the non-producing Party believes

18

that the redacted information is relevant, the Parties will meet and confer and, if they are unable

19

to reach an agreement, will seek guidance from the Court. If guidance from the Court is sought,

20

the producing Party will make an unredacted version of the document available for in camera

21

inspection along with any submission by the Parties.

22

F. Protected Information
If information protected from disclosure by any applicable privacy law or rule

23
24
25
26
27

(“Protected Information”) is contained in a document or ESI obtained from any custodian or data
source, prior to production of the document or ESI, the Party will redact such Protected
Information in accordance with the procedures identified in Section E above and identify it as
“PII.”

28

10

1
2
3

G. Document Numbering for TIFF Images
Each page of a document produced in TIFF file format shall have a legible, unique
numeric identifier (“Bates number”) not less than seven (7) digits (with zero-padding)

4

electronically “burned” onto the image at a place on the document that does not obscure, conceal

5

or interfere with any information originally appearing on the document. The Bates number for

6

each document shall be created so as to identify the producing party or non-party and the Bates

7

number (e.g., “ABC-0000000”).

8

H. Document Type and Preferred Production Format

9

In addition to the parameters set forth below, all productions should include a

10

Concordance load file (.DAT and .OPT). The producing party shall provide a data load file

11

(“Data Load File”) that shall contain the reasonably-available metadata associated with each

12

field as specified in Schedule A, attached hereto, to the extent applicable and not cost prohibitive

13

or burdensome. The producing party also shall produce document level .txt files for all

14

documents containing extracted full text wherever possible, or OCR text if extracted full text is

15

unavailable or there are redactions in the document. Each TIFF and TXT file shall be named

16

consistent with the Bates number endorsed on the image as required in Section F above.

17

Production shall be in black-and-white, except where otherwise specified, or where color is

18

necessary to understand the document (e.g., charts). The receiving party may make good faith

19

requests for color production of specific documents as reasonably necessary.

20

If a TIFF file is permitted by this Order to be, and is, produced instead of a native file, all

21

hidden text (e.g., track changes, hidden columns, comments, notes, markups, etc.) will be

22

expanded, extracted, and rendered in the TIFF file. This specifically includes, but is not limited

23

to, the inclusion of any notes or comments contained within any PowerPoint slides/presentations

24

that are produced in TIFF format. To the extent such hidden text is subject to a claim of

25
26
27
28

attorney-client privilege or attorney work product it may be redacted and logged.
1.

Hard Copy Documents

Hard copy documents shall be scanned to single page, uniquely numbered TIFF image
files not less than 300dpi resolution with OCR .txt files and Bates numbers with appropriate zero

11

1
2
3

padding. Image files should be produced in such a way that it is clear where each document
produced begins and ends (i.e., unitized) to the extent feasible and also will be produced together
with an “.OPT load file.” No Party will modify or change the format of hard copy documents as

4

they actually exist in paper form, but each Party will use best efforts to produce difficult-to-read

5

hard copy documents in a manner that causes their contents to be reasonably readable.

6

2.

7

E-Mail
The parties will produce e-mail, together with all attachments, as follows:

8

a.

The parties will convert native e-mails to single page TIFFs.

9

b.

Each TIFF is to show the Bates number and confidentiality designation for

10

each such email page. E-mail families will be given a PARENTID field in the accompanying

11

.DAT Data Load File as set forth in Schedule A, attached.

12

c.

E-mail attachment icons or filenames should be visible in the imaged body

13

of the e-mail, to the extent existing in the original data if reasonably feasible and where the icons

14

or filenames are not redacted.

15

3.

User Files

16

User files, other than Microsoft Excel or like kind files, shall be defined to include all

17

word processing, text editing, presentation program file formats (including but not limited to files

18

created with Microsoft Word, Word Perfect, and Notepad, including comparable applications

19

utilized by non-Microsoft operating systems such as Macintosh). Such files, de-duplicated as per

20

above, will be produced as single page TIFFs with extracted text (with documents containing

21

redactions processed as necessary to protect the redacted information from disclosure), with

22

reasonably-available metadata as set forth in Schedule A to the extent feasible and not cost-

23

prohibitive, and Bates numbers.

24
25
26
27
28

4.

Microsoft Excel, Access, and PowerPoint Files

Microsoft Excel, Access, and PowerPoint files shall be produced natively, in accordance
with the specifications below, except where redactions are required, in which case, ¶ E, above
also shall apply.
5.

Photographs

12

1
2
3

Standalone, electronically stored photographs shall be produced in .JPG, .GIF, or some
other reasonably accessible file format with reasonably-available metadata; each production file
name should contain the document Bates number. Photographs should be produced in color.

4

6.

5

Video, animation, and audio files should be produced in native file format, unless the

Audio/Video Files

6

native application is proprietary and not compatible with open source or common audio and

7

video players such as Quicktime or Windows Media Player, in which case the file should be

8

converted for universal compatibility, to the extent reasonably feasible. If a Party contends that

9

it is not reasonably feasible to convert a file for universal compatibility, the Party shall promptly

10

meet and confer with all other parties about whether and how the information in question can be

11

produced consistent with this agreement and in a reasonably accessible form.

12

All video, animation, or audio files that a producing party in good faith believes contains

13

material protected by either the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine must

14

be identified on a privilege log.

15

7.

All Other File Formats

16

Production of file-types reasonably believed to contain relevant information not included

17

in the list above should be immediately identified and brought to the attention of the receiving

18

party to discuss a mutually agreeable and reasonably useable format for production and labeling.

19

8.

Natively Produced Documents

20

For any documents produced in native format, the production file name should contain

21

the Bates number of the document, and appropriate confidentiality designation, if any. The

22

metadata field for file name should contain the original file name as specified in the file’s

23

properties, if reasonably available. A placeholder TIFF should be included in the load file

24

indicating that the file was produced natively. A folder of native files should be included in the

25
26
27

load file and a NATIVEPATH field containing the path to the native file so that a link can be
made in Concordance. Native files that do not contain redactions will be produced with
extracted text and reasonably-available, applicable metadata fields to the extent applicable and

28

13

1
2
3

not cost prohibitive or burdensome. For documents that contain redactions, the parties may
apply the redactions directly on the native file itself.
9.

Structured Data

4

Generally, databases should be produced in a mutually-agreeable data exchange format.

5

The parties agree to meet and confer regarding the data to be produced from each source, if any,

6

and the form(s) of the production thereof.

7

10.

8

Files containing foreign language and reasonably-available metadata should be produced

9
10
11

Foreign Language Text Files

with the correct encoding to enable the preservation of the documents’ original language.
I. Privilege Log
The Parties agree that for all documents and information that are withheld (or redacted)

12

on privilege or work product grounds, the following information will be provided in an easily

13

readable chart within a reasonable time not to exceed sixty (60) days from the date of each

14

production of documents (in a rolling production) by a Party for which the asserted basis for

15

withholding (or redaction) applies (or within a specific timeframe that is mutually agreed-upon):

16

1.

Privilege log reference number;

17

2.

Bates range of document (if applicable);

18

3.

Author(s) (designating which, if any, are attorneys);

19

4.

Recipient(s), including copyee(s) (designating which, if any, are attorneys);

20

5.

Description of the documents (or redacted portion of the document) as set forth in
Rule 26(b)(5)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and

21
22

6.

Asserted basis for withholding.

23

A Party will make reasonable efforts to produce a privilege log for a custodian/department at

24

least ten (10) days in advance of such a deposition upon request by the other Party for documents

25
26

and information that previously has been produced for which no privilege log has yet been
provided.

27
28

14

1

SCHEDULE A LOAD FILE FIELDS:

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

Field Name:
BCC:
BegAttch:
BegDoc:
CC:
Conf Desig:
Custodian:
Author:
Date Created:
Time Created
Date Last Modified:
Time Last Modified
Date Sent:
Time Sent
Date Received:
Time Received
Email Subject:
EndAttch:
EndDoc:
File Extension:
Source File Name:
File Size:
From:
MD5 Hash:
NATIVEPATH:
E-Mail Folder Path
Duplicate Custodian
PARENTID:
PG Count:
To:
Prod Volume:
Redaction

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

15