Nazemian et al v. NVIDIA Corporation

Filing 98

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on 01/08/2025. (dms, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/8/2025)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ABDI NAZEMIAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.

9
10

NVIDIA CORPORATION,
Defendant.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 24-cv-01454-JST
ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY OF
ELECTRONICALLY STORED
INFORMATION
Re: ECF Nos. 73, 88, 89

12
13
14
15
16
17

The Court, having considered the parties’ proposals regarding the discovery of
electronically stored information, hereby orders as follows:
Upon the stipulation of Plaintiffs, individually and all others similarly situated, and
NVIDIA Corporation (collectively, “the Parties”), the Court ORDERS as follows:
1.

Purpose. This Order supplements all other discovery rules and orders. It

18

streamlines Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”) production to promote a “just, speedy, and

19

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

20
21
22

2.

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

stipulation.
3.

Planning for Discovery. Consistent with the Parties’ obligations under the Rules,

23

the Parties will meet and confer to plan for discovery. This will include a disclosure of data

24

sources, anticipated date ranges of relevant documents, and categories of documents or ESI that

25

contain information relevant to this litigation.

26

4.

Electronic communications. The Parties will disclose within 30 days of the entry

27

of this Order any use of electronic communications services and applications (e.g., Slack, MS

28

Teams, Zoom, WhatsApp, Sametime, Skype, Telegram, etc.) used by the Party (collectively,

1

“electronic communications”), including a description of the subscription and retention settings in

2

place. The Parties will meet and confer regarding issues relating to the parameters for an inclusive

3

collection of such data, the format of the production, and other unique issues to this type of data.

4

5.

5

information that they have reason to believe have not been preserved or should not be preserved

6

and will explain with specificity the reasons to support such a belief in writing.
a.

7

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Preservation. The Parties will disclose categories or sources of discoverable

The Parties and their respective counsel have an obligation to take

8

reasonable steps to preserve discoverable information in the Parties’ possession, custody, or

9

control, which includes Metadata, where applicable, consistent with the Federal Rules. The

10

Parties who are business entities have issued, or immediately after this Order has taken effect shall

11

issue, litigation hold notices to those internal departments, divisions, committees, teams, and/or

12

individuals likely to possess potentially responsive information, and to persons or entities

13

responsible for maintenance of non-custodial sources likely to contain potentially responsive

14

information, and have established procedures to ensure that those notices have been received and

15

understood. Counsel for the Parties who are not business entities have, or immediately after this

16

Order has taken effect shall, (1) confer with their clients regarding their data sources likely to

17

contain potentially responsive information and (2) provide their clients with a written explanation

18

of their preservation obligations under the Federal Rules, and have ensured that the written

19

description of those obligations has been received and understood.

20

6.

Scope of Production Requests. Discovery requests under Federal Rules of Civil

21

Procedure 33, 34, 36, and 45 shall be consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) directive that “Parties may

22

obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or

23

defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake

24

in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the

25

parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden

26

or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of

27

discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.”

28
2

1

ESI Liaison Counsel. The Parties will identify liaisons to each other who are and

2

will be knowledgeable about and responsible for discussing their respective ESI. Each e-

3

discovery liaison will be outside counsel for a Party who are, or have access to those who are,

4

knowledgeable about the technical aspects of e-discovery, including the location, nature,

5

accessibility, format, collection, search methodologies, and production of ESI in this matter. The

6

Parties will rely on the liaisons, as needed, to confer about ESI and to help resolve disputes

7

without court intervention.

8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7.

8.

Electronic Communications Discovery. A Requesting Party may request up to

9

twenty-four (24) custodians per Producing Party. A Party must obtain leave of Court to request

10

custodians beyond twenty-four (24), which shall be granted only upon a showing of good cause.

11

The named Plaintiffs collectively will be considered a “Requesting Party” when serving email

12

production requests on NVIDIA as the Producing Party. The Parties may jointly agree to modify

13

these limits without the Court’s leave. The Parties expressly reserve the right to request inclusion

14

of additional custodians as discovery progresses. The Court shall consider contested requests for

15

additional custodians, based upon a showing of proportionality to the needs of the case as that

16

phrase is used in Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

17

9.

Search Term Methodology. Each Requesting Party shall limit its email production

18

requests to a total of fifteen (15) search terms per custodian per Party. The total of fifteen (15)

19

search terms may be requested in one or more rounds of requests. The Parties may jointly agree to

20

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

21

additional search terms per custodian, upon showing a distinct need based on the size, complexity,

22

and issues of this specific case. The Requesting Party may propound up to ten (10) written

23

discovery requests to identify the proper custodians, proper search terms, and proper time frame

24

for email production requests, which shall not count against the interrogatory limit. The

25

Producing Party shall, within fourteen (14) days of such request, respond to the list of written

26

discovery requests subject to any objections permissible under the Federal Rules of Civil

27

Procedure or Federal Rules of Evidence. The Parties may revise the foregoing process by written

28

agreement. The search terms shall be narrowly tailored to particular issues. Indiscriminate terms,
3

1

such as the producing company’s name or its product name, are inappropriate unless combined

2

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

3

combination of multiple words or phrases (e.g., “computer” and “system”) presumptively narrows

4

the search and shall count as a single search term. A disjunctive combination of multiple words or

5

phrases (e.g., “computer” or “system”) presumptively broadens the search, and thus each word or

6

phrase shall count as a separate search term unless they are variants of the same word. Use of

7

narrowing search criteria (e.g., “and,” “but not,” “w/x”) is encouraged to limit the production.
10.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

Hit Reports. Fourteen (14) days after a Requesting Party has served search terms

9

as set out in Paragraphs 8 and 9 above, the Producing Party will provide a search term hit report.

10

A hit report shall contain, for each custodian, the following with respect to each proposed search

11

term:

12

a.

The number of documents with hits for that term;

13

b.

The number of unique documents, i.e., documents which do not have hits

14

for any other term, for that term; and
c.

15
16

The number of family members requiring review in connection with all

documents with hits.

17

The Parties will meet and confer to resolve disagreements over the search terms, their

18

efficacy, or their application. The parties will agree to revisit setting reasonable limits on the

19

permissible number of hits per term and/or custodian to the extent proportional to the needs of

20

the case in the course of exchanging search terms and hit-counts.

21

11.

Custodial Mobile Device and Communications Data.

22

For Document Custodians agreed on by the Parties or ordered by the Court, a producing

23

Party will take reasonable steps to identify whether any unique, responsive, and relevant ESI

24

(including voicemails, text messages and/or iMessages, chats [such as WhatsApp, Signal, and

25

Facebook Messenger], notes, calendar items, emails, Word documents, photographs, audio

26

recordings, and video recordings), if any, is located on any devices (including mobile phones,

27

tablets, and computers) in the “possession, custody, or control” (as defined under the Federal

28

Rules and case law) of the Producing Party. The Parties agree that such reasonable steps include
4

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

asking whether the custodian has used non-enterprise communications platforms (e.g., text

2

messages, WhatsApp, Signal, etc.) to discuss matters relevant to the litigation. If the custodian

3

has not, the custodian may certify in writing that they have not used such platforms to discuss

4

matters relevant to the litigation using a form to be agreed on by the Parties, and the Producing

5

Party shall produce that certification to the Requesting Party. The Parties shall meet and confer

6

about any issues relating to mobile devices including the scope and format of production.

7

If the custodian is unable to provide a certification as set forth in the preceding

8

paragraph, the Producing Party shall conduct a reasonable investigation to determine what

9

communications means and/or platforms (e.g., text messages and the chat applications identified

10

above) have been used by the custodian to discuss matters relevant to the litigation and what

11

communications should be collected. A Producing Party shall use reasonable due diligence to

12

ensure that reasonably available sources of data/applications on a mobile device (and related

13

backups and archives, if those data sources/applications contain work-related information) are

14

evaluated and considered as a potential source of data subject to discovery.

15

12.

Technology Assisted Review. Nothing in this Order prevents the Parties from

16

agreeing to use technology assisted review and other techniques insofar as their use improves the

17

efficacy of discovery. Should a Producing Party wish to use any technology-based process or

18

automated method not specifically addressed by this Order to exclude documents from any review

19

or production, notice to the Receiving Party must be made prior to the use of any such method and

20

the Receiving Party must be given an opportunity to object before such method is used. If a Party

21

intends to use Technology Assisted Review (including Continuous Active Learning), the Parties

22

will agree to a separate TAR protocol to govern that process. If the Parties are unable to reach

23

agreement on a TAR protocol, they will submit any disputed issues to the Court or its designee for

24

resolution. Without prior agreement of the Parties, Technology Assisted Review (“TAR”) will not

25

be applied before or after any application of search terms by any Party, unless TAR is used for

26

review prioritization only.

27

13.

Production Format for ESI.

28
5

a.

1
2

electronic format (e.g., Word, PDF, webpage files) shall be produced as 300 DPI TIFF black and

3

white images with a Bates number stamped on each page, document metadata (including extracted

4

or OCR text), and a link to the associated extracted or OCR text file. All ESI containing track

5

changes or comments (including word documents and PDFs) will be produced as native files,

6

where available metadata (e.g., hidden content fields) indicates the presence of track changes or

7

comments and both the detection of such information and the production of native versions can be

8

accomplished by automatic means and without undue burden.
b.

9

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Except as otherwise provided in this Order, all documents existing in

Source code and certain other highly confidential technical materials will be

10

produced in native format and shall be made available for inspection pursuant to the terms of the

11

Parties’ anticipated Protective Order governing “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – SOURCE CODE”

12

materials.
c.

13

Spreadsheet-type files (e.g., Microsoft Excel) and PowerPoint presentations

14

should be produced in native format unless they require redaction. Documents produced in native

15

format should be named according to the Bates number assigned, with the Confidentiality

16

designation appended to the Bates numbers with a hyphen. Single-page Bates-stamped TIFF

17

image slipsheets will be included for each document produced in native format. The slip-sheets

18

will display the Bates number of the native file, the Confidentiality endorsement, and an

19

endorsement stating, “File Produced Natively.”
d.

20

All attachments, addendums, enclosures, and/or exhibits to a parent

21

document will be, to the extent reasonably possible, produced immediately following the parent

22

document and identified as they relate to the respective parent document with the parent/child

23

relationship intact.
e.

24

To the extent reasonably possible, ESI items shall be processed so as to

25

preserve the date/time shown in the document as it was last saved, not the date of collection or

26

processing.

27
28

f.

The Parties agree that, where ESI items need to be redacted, they shall be

produced in TIFF format with each redaction clearly indicated and, to the extent possible, a
6

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

description of the basis for redaction (e.g. “Redacted – Privilege”). All metadata fields shall be

2

provided, unless redaction of those fields is necessary to protect the asserted privilege or work-

3

product claim. The Parties understand that for certain spreadsheet documents (e.g. Microsoft

4

Excel) or other file types or files, TIFF redactions may be impracticable or substantially degrade

5

the usefulness of the document. These documents shall be redacted in native format, and the

6

original document must also preserved in an unredacted form. A Party may make redactions on

7

the basis of a claim of attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or any other recognized

8

privilege from discovery or statutory basis for redacting information, or to protect privacy (i.e. PII

9

redactions), subject to challenge procedures. The Parties shall meet and confer regarding any

10

redactions for relevance to be made within a produced document or ESI item. If the parties are

11

unable to reach agreement, they may submit the matter to the Court through the joint letter-brief

12

process pursuant to the Court’s dispute resolution procedures set forth in Standing Order § H.
g.

13

If any member of a family group is produced, all members of that group

14

must also be produced or else logged as privileged/work-product without breaking the grouping of

15

these documents, unless withheld as irrelevant per an agreement reached in the meet and confer

16

described in subparagraph (f) above.

17

14.

Metadata. Load or DAT files should include, where applicable and to the extent it

18

exists and was captured at the time of the collection, the information listed in Appendices A and

19

B, attached, and productions will follow the technical specifications set forth therein. To the extent

20

that metadata does not exist or is not reasonably accessible or available for any documents

21

produced, nothing in this Order shall require any Party to extract, capture, collect or produce such

22

metadata.

23

15.

Embedded Files. Embedded files, except for images embedded in emails, are to be

24

produced with family relationships preserved. Embedded files should be assigned Bates numbers

25

that directly follow the Bates numbers on the documents within which they are embedded and

26

values in the “BegAttach” and “EndAttach” fields to indicate their family. Images embedded in

27

emails shall not be separately produced in the first instance, but shall be produced upon reasonable

28

request by the Receiving Party. A Producing Party is not required to review or produce extracted
7

1

embedded OLE documents if the document they were extracted from will be produced in native

2

format.

3

Hyperlinks. Except as provided in this section, the Producing Party shall not be

4

required to produce documents solely because they are hyperlinked within the Producing Party’s

5

production. For purposes of this section, “hyperlinked documents” include but are not limited to

6

documents shared via Google Workspace, Microsoft Office’s “Share Documents Via Link”

7

feature, or similar cloud-based document storage and sharing platforms.

8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

16.

Production of Hyperlinked Documents. The Parties may request the production of the

9

current version of a responsive and non-privileged document or communication that is within the

10

Producing Party’s possession, custody, or control and is hyperlinked within the Producing Party’s

11

production by providing to the Producing Party a list of hyperlinks and corresponding Bates

12

numbers in which the hyperlinked document is referenced. If the hyperlinked document has

13

already been produced, the Producing Party may alternatively provide the Receiving Party with

14

the document’s Bates number. Each Party (with all Plaintiffs constituting a single Party) may

15

make up to two hundred (200) such requests. This number may be increased by agreement of the

16

Parties or upon a showing of good cause. The Parties agree to meet and confer in good faith to

17

resolve any disputes concerning the appropriateness of production of the requested documents and

18

communications and any reasonable request to increase the limit on the total number of

19

hyperlinked documents and communications to be produced. If a Requesting Party believes that

20

more requests are warranted and the Receiving Party has not agreed to produce additional

21

hyperlinked documents, the Requesting Party may initiate the joint letter-brief process pursuant to

22

the Court’s dispute resolution procedures set forth in Standing Order § H.

23

Hyperlink Metadata. The Parties acknowledge that the current version of the hyperlinked

24

document (i.e., the version produced pursuant to this Paragraph) may differ from the version of the

25

document at the time the hyperlink was sent. The Parties also acknowledge that the metadata of

26

such document(s) may not reflect the metadata for requested documents at the time the documents

27

were hyperlinked. Hyperlinked documents or communications produced pursuant to this

28

Paragraph shall not be produced with metadata that indicates a family relationship with the
8

1

document containing the hyperlink because no such familial relationship may exist with the

2

version of the hyperlinked document(s) produced.
17.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

Duplicates. A Party is only required to produce a single copy of a responsive

4

document. “Duplicate ESI” means files that are exact duplicates based on the files’ MD5 hash,

5

SHA-1 hash, email duplicate spare messages or SHA-256 hash values. The Parties shall make

6

reasonable efforts to not produce Duplicate ESI. To the extent identical copies of documents

7

appear in the files of multiple Custodians, the Producing Party shall attempt to produce only one

8

such identical copy across all Custodians based on MD5 or SHA-1 hash values at the document

9

level for file system data or the email family level for emails. Entire document families may

10

constitute Duplicate ESI. De-duplication shall not break apart families. When Duplicate ESI exists

11

in the files of multiple custodians, the names of all custodians who were in possession of a

12

document prior to de-duplication will be populated in the All Custodians field identified in

13

Appendix B. Likewise, the File Path that would have been provided for each version of the

14

document that was not produced due to de-duplication shall be populated in the All File Paths

15

field.

16

18.

Privilege Logs. Any document falling within the scope of any request for

17

production that is withheld or redacted on the basis of a claim of attorney-client privilege, work-

18

product doctrine, or any other claim of privilege or immunity from discovery is to be identified by

19

the Producing Party in a privilege log. Each entry on the privilege log shall include sufficient

20

information for a party or the Court to determine whether the document is privileged.
a.

21

Privilege logs will be produced in an Excel format, or other agreed-upon

22

format, which allows the Receiving Party to search and sort any and all columns and entries of the

23

privilege log.

24

b.

The privilege log shall include:

25

i.

A privilege log control number for each entry on the log.

26

ii.

Date of document for all ESI and to the extent known or discernible

27

for all hard copy documents. For emails this should be the sent date of the document and for loose

28

ESI this should be the last-modified and date of the document.
9

iii.

1
2

the metadata extracted from the Custodian(s) field. For loose ESI, this should be populated with

3

the Custodian value assigned to the instance of the document in question.
iv.

4

Author of the document. For emails this should be populated with

5

the metadata extracted from the “Email From” field associated with the file. For loose ESI, this

6

should be populated with the metadata extracted from the “Author” field. For hard copy

7

documents, this will be populated with the “Custodian.”
v.

8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Custodian of the document. For emails this should be populated with

Recipient(s) of the document where reasonably ascertainable. For

9

emails this will be populated with the metadata extracted from the “Email To” field associated

10

with the file. Separate columns will be included for the metadata extracted from the “Email CC”

11

and “Email BCC” fields, where populated.

12

vi.

Subject Line for emails.

13

vii.

Filenames for non-email ESI.

14

viii.

File extension for non-email ESI.

15

ix.

Bates number(s), if any. For Bates numbered documents (e.g. when

16

a parent email is produced but an attachment is withheld on the basis of privilege) the BegAttach

17

and EndAttach values will be provided.

18

c.

Parties may substitute an alternative description of the content within the

19

identified field(s) where the content of the field reveals privileged information. The Producing

20

Party shall identify each instance in which it has modified the content of the field and the basis for

21

the modification.

22

d.

If the document is the parent or child of a family of documents, some of

23

which have been produced and others withheld, the log should identify the Bates numbers of the

24

first document (i.e., the parent, or if the parent is withheld the first attachment) produced from the

25

family in which the logged document was withheld.

26

e.

Privileged communications between a Party and its outside or in-house

27

counsel on or after March 8, 2024, and work product performed by a Party at the direction of its

28

outside or in-house counsel on or after March 8, 2024 need not be included on a privilege log.
10

f.

1
2

using an asterisk or other agreed-upon method; and (b) any third party (along with the name of the

3

third-party business, the job title and/or role of the third-party, and the basis for asserting the claim

4

of privilege or work-product protection sufficient under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)

5

identified in a log entry or entries)). To the extent a document is included on the log where no

6

attorney is listed as the author, sender or recipient, the description shall include sufficient

7

information regarding which attorney(s) requested or were involved in the preparation of the

8

document that is claimed to be privileged.

9
10

19.

Challenging Privilege. A Receiving Party may challenge a Producing Party’s

claims of privilege, work product, or other protection at any time.
a.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

The privilege logs will clearly identify (a) any attorneys on the privilege log

Where the challenge pertains to documents, the Receiving Party shall set

12

forth in writing their challenges and the Producing Party shall have fourteen (14) calendar days to

13

respond. Failure to respond timely will be presumed to terminate the meet and confer process.

14

That timing may be extended by agreement of the Parties.
b.

15

Within seven (7) calendar days of the Producing Party’s response, the

16

parties shall meet and confer to attempt to resolve the challenge. That timing may be extended by

17

agreement of the Parties.
c.

18
19
20

If, at the conclusion of the meet-and-confer process, the Parties are still not

in agreement, they may bring the issue to the Court.
20.

Model Data. The Parties will meet and confer to address the production of data

21

related to the Models at issue. Given the size, structure and format of such data, the Parties agree

22

to discuss how Model Data should be produced: for example, raw data files, summaries, reports,

23

code repositories, and/or annotated code, and whether a sample production of Model Data would

24

be appropriate or if there is some other mechanism available.

25

21.

Documents Protected From Discovery. Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502(d), the

26

production of a privileged or work-product-protected document, whether inadvertent or otherwise,

27

is not a waiver of privilege or protection from discovery in this case or in any other federal or state

28

proceeding. For example, the mere production of privileged or work-product-protected documents
11

1

in this case as part of a mass production is not itself a waiver in this case or in any other federal or

2

state proceeding.

3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 8, 2025
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

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

APPENDIX A

1
2
3

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS AND

4

REQUIRED METADATA FIELDS

5
6

o Produce documents as single page, black and white, Group IV, TIFF files.

7

o Image Resolution 300 DPI.

8

o File Naming Convention: Match Bates Number of the page.

9

o Insert placeholder image for files produced in Native Format.

10

o Original document orientation shall be retained.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

IMAGES:

12
13

SPECIAL FILE TYPE INSTRUCTIONS:
o Certain documents shall be produced in Native Format as required by this Protocol.
FULL TEXT EXTRACTION/OCR:

14
15

o Produce full extracted text for all file types (Redacted text will not be produced) including
text of embedded content.

16

o Produce OCR text for any hard copy document.

17

o Produce OCR text for any ESI where the source format was an image file (such as JPG,
JPEG, GIF, BMP, PCX, PNG, TIF, TIFF etc.) where extracted text cannot be provided,
using industry standard OCR technology (Redacted text will not be produced).

18
19

o Produce OCR text for any redacted document.

20
21
22
23
24

o Production format: Single text file for each document, not one text file per page.
o File Naming Convention: Match BegBates Number.
LOAD FILES
Data Load File

25

o The data load file should use standard Concordance delimiters:

26

o Comma - ¶ (ASCII 20)

27

o Quote - þ (ASCII 254)

28

o Newline-® (ASCII174)
13

1
2

o The first record should contain the field names in the order of the data
o All date fields should be produced in mm/dd/yyyy format

3

o Use carriage-return line-feed to indicate the start of the next record

4

o Load files should not span across media (e.g., CDs, DVDs, Hard Drives, Etc.); a separate
volume should be created for each piece of media delivered

5
6

o The name of the data load file should mirror the name of the delivery volume, and
should have a DAT extension (i.e., ABC00l.DAT)

7

o The volume names should be consecutive (i.e., ABC00l, ABC002, et. seq.)

8

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

Image Load File

10

o The name of the image load file should mirror the name of the delivery volume, and
should have an .OPT extension (i.e., ABC001.0PT)

11

o The volume names should be consecutive (i.e., ABC001, ABC002, et. seq.)

12

o There should be one row in the Load File per TIFF image.

13

o Every image in the delivery volume should be contained in the image load file.

14

o The image key should be named the same as Bates Number of the page.

15

o Load files should not span across media (e.g., CDs, DVDs, Hard Drives, Etc.), i.e., a
separate volume should be created for each piece of media delivered.

16
17
18

o The Opticon OPT image load file (.OPT) configuration shall be a page level comma
delimited file containing seven fields per line: PageID, VolumeLabel, ImageFilePath,
DocumentBreak, FolderBreak, BoxBreak, PageCount

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14

Appendix B
METADATA FIELDS

1
2
3
4

Description

Email

BegBates

Starting Bates #

x

x

x

EndBates

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

19

Document Title

20

Author

21

Email Subject

Ending Bates #
Starting bates # of document
family
Ending bates # of document
family
Name of the custodian or
repository name of the
document produced - Last
Name, First Name format
This is the source in which noncustodial data was collected
from
Name(s) of the deduplicated
custodians or repository
name(s) of the document
produced - Last Name, First
Name format; semi-colon
delimited
File name of document
(including extension)
File extension of original
document
Type of Outlook item, e.g.,
email, calendar item, note, task
For documents produced in
TIFF form, number of pages in
the document. For documents
produced in native, page count
will be 1 (for placeholder).
Title field extracted from the
Metadata of a non-Email
document
Document author of a nonEmail document.
Subject of email

5

BegAttach

6

EndAttach

7
Custodian

8
9

Source

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

All Custodians

12
13
14
15

File Name
File Extension
Email Outlook Type

16
17

Non- Emxail
Hard Copy
ESI

Field

Page Count

18

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

From

Email author

x

x

22

To

Email recipients

x

x

23

CC

Email copyees

x

x

BCC

Email blind copyees
Date sent (mm/dd/yyyy
hh:mm:ss format)
Date received (mm/dd/yyyy
hh:mm:ss format)
Creation date (mm/dd/yyyy
hh:mm:ss format)
Last modification date
(mm/dd/yyyy
hh:mm:ss format)

x

x

x

x

x

x

24
25
26

Date-Time Sent
Date-Time Received
Date-Time Created

27
Date-Time Last Modified

28

15

x
x

Field

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Description

Email

File/path of the location where
the item was located during the
normal course of business.
File Path that would have been
provided for each version of the
All File Paths
document that was not
produced due to de-duplication.
Size or volume of individual
Filesize
file
Y
if
hidden
content,
otherwise
HasHiddenContent1
N or empty
The actual location where the
Physical Location
Document is stored or
preserved
The box number associated
Box Number or unique identifier
with archived documents.
Unique electronic signature of
email
Hash Value
or electronic file used for
deduplication.
Production volume name,
including a volume number and
Production Volume
a prefix which indicates the
producing party
Confidentiality designation
Confidentiality
pursuant to the
Protective Order, if any
Descriptor for documents that
have been redacted, yes or y if
Redacted
document contains redactions,
otherwise n or blank
Path to produced native file
Native Link
used for linking.
Path to produced text file used
Text Link
for database linking.
Beginning bates
Other Regulatory/Related
used when produced in the
Productions BegBates
other legal matter
Ending bates used when
Other Regulatory/Related
produced in the other legal
Productions EndBates
matter
Beginning attachment range
Other Legal Matter BegAttach bates used when produced in
the other legal matter
Ending attachment bates range
Other Regulatory/Related
used when produced in the
Productions EndAttach
other legal matter
File Path

Non- Emxail
Hard Copy
ESI

x

x

x

x

x

x
x
x
x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

25
26
27
28

“Hidden Content” for purposes of this field shall include track changes, comments, hidden slides, hidden
columns, hidden worksheets, or other hidden text.
1

16