Small et al v. University Medical Center of Southern Nevada

Filing 174

SPECIAL MASTER E-DISCOVERY SUMMARY AND ORDER. The parties have agreed to the following two one-hour telephonic hearings with a court reporter on the following dates: 6/26/2014 at 4:00 p.m.; 6/27/2014 at 10:00 a.m. Signed by Special Master Daniel Garrie on 06/24/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
DANIEL SMALL, et al.,

NO. 2:13-cv-00298-APG-PAL
Plaintiff,

SPECIAL MASTER DANIEL B.
GARRIE E-DISCOVERY SUMMARY
AND ORDER

v.
UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER OF
SOUTHERN NEVADA,
Defendants.

BACKGROUND AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS
The Special Master was appointed on March 3, 2014. (Dkt. No. 149.) On March 10,
2014, the parties, counsel for all parties, and ESI consultants for all parties, met with Special
Master Daniel Garrie and United States Magistrate Judge Peggy Leen in chambers. (Dkt. No.
151.) On March 18, 2014, Special Master Garrie memorialized his directives to the parties in a
written order. (Dkt. No. 154.)
The Special Master conducted multiple hearings on the following dates: April 4, 2014;
April 7, 2014; April 10, 2014; April 15, 2014; April 27, 2014; May 1, 2014; May 6, 2014; May
20, 2014; June 3, 2014; and June 16, 2014 with counsel, the parties’ representatives, and
consultants. Those hearings concerned UMC’s ESI collection and production issues; UMC’s
efforts to preserve discoverable materials pursuant to the Plaintiff’s litigation hold/preservation
letters; UMC’s search of ESI collected, UMC’s preservation efforts with mobile devices; and
other issues regarding UMC collection of ESI in the DOL hearings as it relates to this litigation.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiffs and UMC will have done or do the
following:
PLAINTIFFS
1. By June 26, 2014, Plaintiffs are to provide any additional questions they would like Mr.
Williams to address in his declaration.

2. Plaintiffs are to provide a list of the OCR search terms by June 18, 2014. If any of the 30
search terms generate more than 15,000 unique documents, not hits, Plaintiffs must do
one of the following actions:


Suggest five additional search terms to refine the results of that specific search term;



Propose a new search term, with the caveat that they are allowed to elect this option
for a total of five of the 30 search terms.
DEFENDANTS

1. By July 3, 2014, UMC is to submit a letter about the UMC system GRASP that covers
the following: what the system performs at UMC; how the system is used at UMC; why
the system was not identified earlier in the proceedings; what sort of time keeping
functions GRASP is able to perform. In addition, UMC is to provide the Plaintiffs any
training materials used for GRASP and the manuals.
2. By June 27, 2014, Counsel for UMC is to verify whether any of the 613 opt-in plaintiffs
used the Clarity system for any project and submit a letter to the Special Master with the
results. If any of the opt-in plaintiffs are found to have used Clarity, then UMC is to
produce the relevant and responsive data on or before July 1, 2014. Counsel for UMC is
also to make UMC employee Mr. Williams available to Plaintiffs as reasonably necessary
to provide additional information relating to the configuration of the Clarity system.
3. By June 30, 2014, UMC Counsel is to submit a letter to the Special Master that explains
why Clarity was not identified in any of the earlier hearings before the Special Master or
Magistrate Judge Leen.
4. By July 1, 2014, UMC is to submit to the Special Master and the Plaintiffs a document
that identifies any individuals that received reports, emails, or communications with data
captured by Clarity, the number of times these individuals received such data, and the
title and contact details of these individuals.
5. By July 1, 2014, UMC is to have searched all of the projects stored in Clarity to
determine if any additional time keeping systems were deployed at UMC using the terms
Page 2

“time” and “keeping” and the names of these three systems and submit a letter with the
results to the Special Master.
6. By July 1, 2014, Counsel for UMC is to submit a declaration from Mr. Williams, the
individual identified by UMC at the June 16, 2014 hearing as System Administrator of
Clarity, that covers the following: (i) describe in technical terms how UMC employees
use Clarity to track their time and include screen shots; (ii) state if there is a data entry
point to input meal breaks in Clarity; (iii) state whether data inputted by the employees
was preserved, deleted, or purged; (iv) clarify the timeline around how and when UMC
used Clarity; (v) establish who at UMC decided to take Clarity off-line and when did
UMC take Clarity offline.
7. By June 30, 2014, Counsel for UMC is to submit a letter to the Special Master that states
the efforts taken by Mr. Ghosal, a UMC employee, to identify applications on the Intranet
that might contain responsive data and the results of this effort.
8. By July 1, 2014 UMC is to submit a document that describes the results of its efforts to
search all evidence items in their possession, custody and control for the approximately
8,000-plus deleted and modified items that were identified in the “December-April
Deleted Q-drive analysis”. The documents should include the file name, file path, and
any other fields that can be easily generated by the tools being used by UMC ESI
Liaison.
9. As to the three additional time keeping systems identified by UMC at the hearing on June
16, 2014, UMC is to provide a letter on or before July 1, 2014 that explains why UMC
failed to identify these systems prior the hearing on June 16, 2014.
10. By July 1, 2014, UMC is to have searched CrimeStar Records Management System,
Version Transport Tracking, and Bedtracking Component for any of the opt-in plaintiffs
and set-forth in detail the manner in which UMC performed the search of these
timekeeping systems. For any opt-in plaintiffs identified, UMC is to do the following on
or before July 1, 2014:
Page 3

o Provid Plaintiffs the name an the manua for the sys
de
t
nd
al
stems;
o Provid a detailed description of how UMC used the time keeping system;
de
g
the ind
dividuals tha managed th system; a the UMC system adm
at
he
and
C
ministrator;
o Provid a relevant timeline for the systems in existenc at UMC;
de
r
s
ce
o Provid a detailed report of the data the tim keeping s
de
e
me
system captu
ured for the
relevan custodians. If UMC is unable to p
nt
s
provide this d
data, then UMC is to
produc the entire system to th Plaintiffs and make th UMC IT o
ce
he
he
owners
availab to Plainti as neces sary.
ble
iffs
In addition, UMC is to su
n
U
ubmit a decla
aration from Ms. Panzer that explains why she d not
m
ri
did
pr
reviously me
ention the th addition timekeep
hree
nal
ping systems in the hearin or custo
ngs
odial
in
nterview, and identify if she is aware of any othe UMC executives who knew of the
d
e
er
o
ese
ti
imekeeping systems.
s
BOTH PA
ARTIES
Parties are to prov findings of fact and conclusions of law by J
vide
s
d
s
July 11, 2014 The page
4.
li
imit is 100 pages. See 06
6/16/2014 Tr. 217:20-25 218:1-10; 219:12.
T
5;

ADDIT
TIONAL HE
EARING D
DATES
a
e
two one-hou telephonic hearings wi a court
ur
c
ith
The parties have agreed to the following t
eporter prese on the following date June 26, 2
ent
es:
2014 at 4 p.m June 27, 2014 at 10 a.m.
m.;
,
re
SO ORDERED
D:

Dan Garrie, E
niel
Esq.
Elec
ctronic Disco
overy Specia Master
al

DATED this 24th day of June, 2014
D

Pag 4
ge