Google Inc. v. Rockstar Consortium US LP et al

Filing 99

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Regarding Discovery of Electronically Stored Information filed by Google Inc., Rockstar Consortium U.S. LP, MobileStar Technologies LLC. (Warren, Matthew) (Filed on 8/4/2014) Modified on 8/5/2014 (cpS, COURT STAFF).

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
& SULLIVAN, LLP
2 Charles Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)
Sean Pak (Cal. Bar No. 219032)
3 Matthew S. Warren (Cal. Bar No. 230565)
Kristin J. Madigan (Cal. Bar No. 233436)
4 quinn-google-n.d.cal.-13-05933
@quinnemanuel.com
5 50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
6 [phone]
[phone] facsimile
7
Attorneys for Plaintiff Google Inc.
8

Courtland L. Reichman (SBN 268873)
Mike McKool (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Douglas A. Cawley (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Ted Stevenson III (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
David Sochia (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
McKool Smith Hennigan, P.C.
255 Redwood Shores, CA 94065
[phone]
[phone] facsimile
Attorneys for Defendants Rockstar Consortium
U.S. LP and MobileStar Technologies LLC

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

OAKLAND DIVISION

12 GOOGLE INC.,

CASE NO. 13-cv-5933-CW

13

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY OF
ELECTRONICALLY STORED
INFORMATION

14

Plaintiff,
v.

15 ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM US LP and
MOBILESTAR TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
16
Defendants.
17
18
19 1.

PURPOSE

20

This Order will govern discovery of electronically stored information (“ESI”) in this case

21 as a supplement to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court’s Guidelines for the Discovery
22 of Electronically Stored Information, and any other applicable orders and rules.
23 2.

COOPERATION

24

The parties are aware of the importance the Court places on cooperation and commit to

25 cooperate in good faith throughout the matter consistent with this Court’s Guidelines for the
26 Discovery of ESI.
27
28
CASE NO. 13-cv-5933-CW
JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION

1 3.

LIAISON

2

a.

The parties have identified liaisons to each other who are and will be

3

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

4

discovery liaison will be, or have access to those who are, knowledgeable about the

5

technical aspects of e-discovery, including the location, nature, accessibility,

6

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

7

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

8

disputes without court intervention.

9

b.

Rockstar appoints Josh Budwin, as its e-discovery liaison.

10

c.

Google appoints Kristin J. Madigan as its e-discovery liaison.

11 4.

PRESERVATION

12

The parties have discussed their preservation obligations and needs and agree that

13 preservation of potentially relevant ESI will be reasonable and proportionate. To reduce the costs
14 and burdens of preservation and to ensure proper ESI is preserved, the parties agree that:
15

a.

ESI regarding the patents-in-suit will only preserved if it existed at the time of the

16

filing of this lawsuit, and was created or received between April 1, 1998 and

17

December 23, 2013 will be preserved;

18

b.

ESI regarding the accused functionality will be preserved only if it existed at the

19

time of the filing of this suit and was created or received between January 1, 2004

20

and December 23, 2013.

21

c.

The parties have discussed the types of ESI they believe should be preserved and

22

the custodians, or general job titles or descriptions of custodians, for whom they

23

believe ESI should be preserved, e.g., “HR head,” “scientist,” and “marketing

24

manager.” The parties shall add or remove custodians as reasonably necessary;

25
26

d.

The parties will agree on the number of custodians per party for whom ESI will be
preserved;

27
28
CASE NO. 13-cv-5933-CW
-2JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION

1

e.

These data sources are not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost

2

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B) and ESI from these sources will be preserved

3

pursuant to normal business retention, but not searched, reviewed, or produced:

4

i.

backup systems and/or tapes used for disaster recovery; and

5

ii.

systems no longer in use that cannot be accessed.

6

f.

Among the sources of data the parties agree are not reasonably accessible, the

7

parties agree not to preserve the following:

8

i.

voicemail messages

9

ii.

information from handsets, mobile devices, personal digital assistants, and

10

tablets that is duplicative of information that resides in a reasonably

11

accessible data source;

12

iii.

instant messaging;

13

iv.

automatically saved versions of documents and emails;

14

v.

video and audio recordings;

15

vi.

deleted, slack, fragmented, or other data accessible only by forensics;

16

vii.

random access memory (RAM), temporary files, or other ephemeral data

17

that are difficult to preserve without disabling the operating system;

18

viii.

19

and the like;

20

ix.

21

dynamic fields of databases or log files that are not retained in the usual
course of business; and

22

x.

23
24

on-line access data such as temporary internet files, history, cache, cookies,

data in metadata fields that are frequently updated automatically, such as
last opened dates.

g.

In addition to the agreements above, the parties agree data from these sources (a)

25

could contain relevant information but (b) under the proportionality factors, should

26

not be preserved: none.

27
28
CASE NO. 13-cv-5933-CW
-3JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION

1 5.

SEARCH

2

a.

The parties agree that in responding to an initial Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 request, or

3

earlier if appropriate, they will meet and confer about methods to search ESI in

4

order to identify ESI that is subject to production in discovery and filter out ESI

5

that is not subject to discovery.

6

b.

Each party will use its best efforts to filter out common system files and application

7

executable files by using a commercially reasonable hash identification process.

8

Hash values that may be filtered out during this process are located in the National

9

Software Reference Library (“NSRL”) NIST hash set list. Additional culling of

10

system file types based on file extension may include, but are not limited to:

11

WINNT, LOGS, DRVS, MP3, MP4, WAV, C++ Program File (c), C++ Builder 6

12

(cpp), Channel Definition Format (cdf), Creatures Object Sources (cos), Dictionary

13

file (dic), Executable (exe), Hypertext Cascading Style Sheet (css), JavaScript

14

Source Code (js), Label Pro Data File (IPD), Office Data File (NICK), Office

15

Profile Settings (ops), Outlook Rules Wizard File (rwz), Scrap Object, System File

16

(dll), Temporary File (tmp), Windows Error Dump (dmp), Windows Media Player

17

Skin Package (wmz), Windows NT/2000 Event View Log file (evt), Python Script

18

files (.py, .pyc, .pud, .pyw), Program Installers.

19

c.

Each party is required to produce only a single copy of a responsive document and

20

each party may de-duplicate responsive ESI (based on MD5 or SHA-1 hash values

21

at the document level) across custodians. For emails with attachments, the hash

22

value is generated based on the parent/child document grouping. A party may also

23

de-duplicate “near-duplicate” email threads as follows: In an email thread, only the

24

final-in-time document need be produced, assuming that all previous emails in the

25

thread are contained within the final message. Where a prior email contains an

26

attachment, that email and attachment shall not be removed as a “near-duplicate.”

27

To the extent that de-duplication through MD5 or SHA-1 hash values is not

28
CASE NO. 13-cv-5933-CW
-4JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION

1

possible, the parties shall meet and confer to discuss any other proposed method of

2

de-deduplication.

3

d.

No provision of this Order affects any inspection of source code that is responsive

4

to a discovery request and will be made available consistent with the protective

5

order governing this case.

6 6.

PRODUCTION FORMATS

7

The parties agree to produce documents in the formats described in Appendix 1 to this

8 Order. If particular documents warrant a different format, the parties will cooperate to arrange for
9 the mutually acceptable production of such documents. The parties agree not to degrade the
10 searchability of documents as part of the document production process.
11 7.

PHASING

12

a.

13
14

parties agree to phase the production of ESI.
b.

15
16

When a party propounds discovery requests pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, the

Defendant’s initial production will be from the following sources and custodians:
Internal Patent History Files, Sharepoint, Electronic Data Room, Poisson, Egan.

c.

17

Plaintiff’s initial production will be from the following sources and custodians:
Source Code for the Accused Functionality.

18 8.

DOCUMENTS PROTECTED FROM DISCOVERY

19

a.

Under Fed. R. Evid. 502(d), the production of a privileged or work-product-

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

or in any other federal or state proceeding. A producing party may assert privilege

25

or protection over produced documents at any time by notifying the receiving party

26

in writing of the assertion of privilege or protection. Information that contains

27

privileged matter or attorney work product shall be returned immediately if such

28

information appears on its face to have been inadvertently produced or if requested.
CASE NO. 13-cv-5933-CW
-5JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION

1

b.

Parties to this action and their subsidiaries need not log privileged communications

2

transmitted after October 31, 2013, or privileged documents created after October

3

31, 2013. Communications may be identified on a privilege log by category, rather

4

than individually, if appropriate.

5

c.

6
7

Activities undertaken in compliance with the duty to preserve information are
protected from discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A) and (B).

d.

Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted to require disclosure of irrelevant

8

information or relevant information protected by the attorney-client privilege,

9

work-product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or immunity. The parties

10

do not waive any objections to the production, discoverability, admissibility, or

11

confidentiality of documents and ESI.

12 9.

MODIFICATION

13

This Stipulated Order may be modified by a Stipulated Order of the parties or by the Court

14 for good cause shown. Any such modified Stipulated Order will be titled sequentially as follows,
15 “First Modified Stipulated Order re: Discovery of Electronically Stored Information for Standard
16 Litigation,” and each modified Stipulated Order will supercede the previous Stipulated Order.
17

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

18 DATED: August 4, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

19

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

20

By /s Matthew S. Warren
Matthew S. Warren
Attorneys for Google Inc.

21
22

McKOOL SMITH HENNIGAN,P.C.
23
24
25

By /s Joshua W. Budwin
Joshua W. Budwin
Attorneys for Rockstar Consortium US LP and
MobileStar Technologies LLC

26
27
28
CASE NO. 13-cv-5933-CW
-6JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION

1
2

ATTESTATION
I, Matthew S. Warren, am the ECF User whose userid and password authorized the filing

3 of this document. Under Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest that Joshua W. Budwin has concurred
4 in this filing.
5 DATED: August 4, 2014

/s Matthew S. Warren
Matthew S. Warren

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO. 13-cv-5933-CW
-7JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION

1

[PROPOSED] ORDER

2

The Court having considered the stipulation of the parties, the Court orders that the parties’

3 agreement is approved.
4

PURSUANT TO THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
6
7 Dated:
8

, 2014
Honorable Claudia Wilken
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO. 13-cv-5933-CW
-8JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION

1

APPENDIX 1

2

PRODUCTION FORMAT AND METADATA

3

Production Components. Productions shall include, single page TIFFs, Text

a.

4

Files, an ASCII delimited metadata file (.txt, .dat, or .csv) and an image load file

5

that can be loaded into commercially acceptable production software (e.g.,

6

Concordance).

7

Image Load File shall contain the following comma-delimited fields:

b.

8

BEGBATES, VOLUME, IMAGE FILE PATH, DOCUMENT BREAK, FOLDER

9

BREAK, BOX BREAK, PAGE COUNT.

10

Metadata Fields and Metadata File. Each of the metadata and coding fields set

c.

11

forth below that can be extracted shall be produced for each document. The parties

12

are not obligated to populate manually any of the fields below if such fields cannot

13

be extracted from a document, with the exception of the following: BEGBATES,

14

ENDBATES, BEGATTACH, ENDATTACH, and CUSTODIAN. The metadata

15

file shall be delimited according to the following characters:

16

•

Delimiter = ¶ (ASCII:020)

17

•

Text-Qualifier = þ (ASCII:254)

18

•

New Line = ® (ASCII:174)

19
20

Field Name

Field Description

21

BEGBATES

Beginning Bates number as stamped on the production image

22

ENDBATES

Ending Bates number as stamped on the production image

23

BEGATTACH

First production Bates number of the first document in a family

24

ENDATTACH

Last production Bates number of the last document in a family

25

CUSTODIAN

Includes the Individual (Custodian) from whom the documents
originated and all Individual(s) whose documents de-duplicated
out (De-Duped Custodian).

SUBJECT

Subject line of email

26
27
28

CASE NO. 13-cv-5933-CW
-9JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION

1
2
3
4
5

TITLE

Title from properties of document

DATESENT

Date email was sent (format: MM/DD/YYYY)

TO

All recipients that were included on the “To” line of the email

FROM

The name and email address of the sender of the email

CC

All recipients that were included on the “CC” line of the email

BCC

All recipients that were included on the “BCC” line of the
email

AUTHOR

Any value populated in the Author field of the document
properties

FILENAME

Filename of an electronic document (Edoc or attachment)

DATEMOD

Date an electronic document was last modified (format:
MM/DD/YYYY) (Edoc or attachment)

DATECREATED

Date the document was created (format: MM/DD/YYYY)
(Edoc or attachment)

NATIVELINK

Native File Link (Native Files only)

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

d.

TIFFs. Documents that exist only in hard copy format shall be scanned and
produced as TIFFs. Unless excepted below, documents that exist as ESI shall be
converted and produced as TIFFs. Unless excepted below, single page Group IV
TIFFs should be provided, at least 300 dots per inch (dpi) for all documents. Each
TIFF image shall be named according to a unique corresponding Bates number
associated with the document. Each image shall be branded according to the Bates
number and the agreed upon confidentiality designation. Original document
orientation should be maintained (i.e., portrait to portrait and landscape to
landscape). TIFFs shall show all text and images that would be visible to a user of
the hard copy documents. The parties will accommodate reasonable requests for
production of specific images in color. The requesting party shall bear costs
incurred for any such production over 100 pages per producing party. In scanning
hard copy documents, distinct documents should not be merged into a single
record, and single documents should not be split into multiple records (i.e., hard

28
CASE NO. 13-cv-5933-CW
-10JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION

1

copy documents should be logically unitized). The parties will use reasonable

2

efforts to unitize documents correctly.

3

e.

Text Files. A single multi-page text file shall be provided for each document, and

4

the filename should match its respective TIFF filename. A commercially

5

acceptable technology for optical character recognition “OCR” shall be used for all

6

scanned, hard copy documents. When possible, the text of native files should be

7

extracted directly from the native file. Text files will not contain the redacted

8

portions of the documents and OCR text files will be substituted instead of

9

extracted text files for redacted documents.

10

f.

Image Load Files / Data Load Files. Each TIFF in a production must be

11

referenced in the corresponding image load file. The total number of documents

12

referenced in a production’s data load file should match the total number of

13

designated document breaks in the Image Load file(s) in the production. The total

14

number of pages referenced in a production’s image load file should match the total

15

number of TIFF files in the production. The total number of documents in a

16

production should match the total number of records in the data load file.

17

g.

18
19

Bates Numbering. All images must be assigned a unique Bates number that is
sequential within a given document and across the production sets.

h.

Confidentiality Designation. Responsive documents in TIFF format will be

20

stamped with the appropriate confidentiality designations in accordance with the

21

Protective Order in this matter. Each responsive document produced in native

22

format will have its confidentiality designation identified in the filename of the

23

native file.

24

i.

Redaction Of Information. If documents are produced containing redacted

25

information, an electronic copy of the original, unredacted data shall be securely

26

preserved in such a manner so as to preserve without modification, alteration or

27

addition the content of such data including any metadata therein.

28
CASE NO. 13-cv-5933-CW
-11JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION

1

j.

Spreadsheets. TIFF images of spreadsheets (MS Excel, Google Sheets) need not

2

be produced unless redacted, in which instance, spreadsheets shall be produced in

3

TIFF with OCR Text Files. Native copies of spreadsheets shall be produced with a

4

link in the NativeLink field, along with extracted text and applicable metadata

5

fields set forth in Paragraph 3. A TIFF placeholder indicating that the document

6

was provided in native format should accompany the database record. If a

7

spreadsheet has been redacted, TIFF images and OCR text of the redacted

8

document will suffice in lieu of a native file and extracted text. The parties will

9

make reasonable efforts to ensure that any spreadsheets that are produced only as

10
11

TIFF images are formatted so as to be readable.
k.

Presentations. The parties shall take reasonable efforts to process presentations

12

(MS PowerPoint, Google Presently) with hidden slides and speaker’s notes

13

unhidden, and to show both the slide and the speaker’s notes on the TIFF image.

14

l.

Proprietary Files. To the extent a response to discovery requires production of

15

ESI accessible only through proprietary software, the parties should continue to

16

preserve each version of such information. The parties shall meet and confer to

17

finalize the appropriate production format.

18

m.

Request(s) for Additional Native Files. If good cause exists to request production

19

of certain files, other than those specifically set forth above, in native format, the

20

party may request such production and provide an explanation of the need for

21

native file review, which request shall not unreasonably be denied. Any native files

22

that are produced shall be produced with a link in the NativeLink field, along with

23

extracted text and applicable metadata fields set forth in Paragraph 3. A TIFF

24

placeholder indicating that the document was provided in native format should

25

accompany the database record. If a file has been redacted, TIFF images and OCR

26

text of the redacted document will suffice in lieu of a native file and extracted text.

27
28

n.

Production Media. Documents shall be produced on external hard drives, readily
accessible computer(s) or other electronic media (“Production Media”). Each piece

CASE NO. 13-cv-5933-CW
-12JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION

1

of Production Media shall identify a production number corresponding to the

2

production volume (e.g., “VOL001,” “VOL002”), as well as the volume of the

3

material in that production (e.g. “-001,” “-002”). Each piece of Production Media

4

shall also identify: (1) the producing party’s name; (2) the production date; (3) the

5

Bates Number range of the materials contained on the Production Media; (4) the

6

set(s) of requests for production for which the documents are being produced and

7

(5) whether the media contains Protected Material under the Protective Order in

8

this case. An inadvertent failure to identify whether the media contains Protected

9

Material will not waive or otherwise change the protected status or confidentiality

10
11

of the material.
o.

Production Correspondence. When productions are made by FTP or email, the

12

production cover letter shall include the production volume (e.g., “VOL001,”

13

“VOL002”), as well as the volume of the material in that production (e.g. “-

14

001,” “-002”). The production cover letter shall also include (1) the producing

15

party’s name; (2) the production date; (3) the Bates Number range of the materials

16

contained in the production; and (4) whether the production contains Protected

17

Material under the Protective Order in this case. An inadvertent failure to include

18

in the cover letter whether the production contains Protected Material will not

19

waive or otherwise change the protected status or confidentiality of the material.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CASE NO. 13-cv-5933-CW
-13JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION