Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 37 Filed 04/05/19 Page 1 of 5
`
`
`
`PAUL ANDRE (State Bar No. 196585)
`pandre@kramerlevin.com
`LISA KOBIALKA (State Bar No. 191404)
`lkobialka@kramerlevin.com
`JAMES HANNAH (State Bar No. 237978)
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS &
`FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 752-1700
`Facsimile: (650) 752-1800
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`FINJAN, INC.
`
`
`EDWARD G. POPLAWSKI (State Bar No. 113590)
`epoplawski@wsgr.com
`OLIVIA M. KIM (State Bar No. 228382)
`okim@wsgr.com
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`633 West Fifth Street, 15th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (323) 210-2900
`Facsimile: (866) 974-7329
`
`Ryan R. Smith (State Bar No. 229323)
`rsmith@wsgr.com
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
`Telephone: (650) 493-9300
`Facsimile: (650) 493-6811
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`QUALYS INC.
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`FINJAN, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`QUALYS INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`Case No.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`STIPULATED ORDER REGARDING
`DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY
`STORED INFORMATION
`
`
`
`
`
`STIPULATED ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY
`OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 37 Filed 04/05/19 Page 2 of 5
`
`
`
`Upon the stipulation of the parties, the Court ORDERS as follows:
`
`1.
`
`This Order supplements all other discovery rules and orders. It streamlines
`
`Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”) production to promote a “just, speedy, and inexpensive
`
`determination of this action, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1.”
`
`2.
`
`This Order may be modified in the Court’s discretion or by stipulation. The parties shall
`
`jointly submit any proposed modifications within 30 days after the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16
`
`Conference.
`
`3.
`
`As in all cases, costs may be shifted for disproportionate ESI production requests
`
`pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. Likewise, a party’s nonresponsive or dilatory
`
`discovery tactics are cost-shifting considerations.
`
`4.
`
`A party’s meaningful compliance with this Order and efforts to promote efficiency and
`
`reduce costs will be considered in cost-shifting determinations.
`
`5.
`
`The parties are expected to comply with the District’s E-Discovery Guidelines
`
`(“Guidelines”) and are encouraged to employ the District’s Model Stipulated Order Re: the Discovery
`
`of Electronically Stored Information and Checklist for Rule 26(f) Meet and Confer regarding
`
`Electronically Stored Information.
`
`6.
`
`General ESI production requests under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 34 and 45 shall
`
`not include email or other forms of electronic correspondence (collectively “email”). To obtain email
`
`parties must propound specific email production requests.
`
`7.
`
`Email production requests shall only be propounded for specific issues, rather than
`
`general discovery of a product or business.
`
`8.
`
`Email production requests shall be phased to occur after the parties have exchanged
`
`initial disclosures and basic documentation about the patents, the prior art, the accused
`
`instrumentalities, and the relevant finances. While this provision does not require the production of
`
`such information, the Court encourages prompt and early production of this information to promote
`
`efficient and economical streamlining of the case.
`
`1
`STIPULATED ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY
`OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION
`
`Case No.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 37 Filed 04/05/19 Page 3 of 5
`
`
`
`9.
`
`Email production requests shall identify the custodian, search terms, and time frame.
`
`The parties shall cooperate to identify the proper custodians, proper search terms and proper timeframe
`
`as set forth in the Guidelines.
`
`10.
`
`Each requesting party shall limit its email production requests to a total of five
`
`custodians per producing party for all such requests. The parties may jointly agree to modify this limit
`
`without the Court’s leave. The Court shall consider contested requests for additional custodians, upon
`
`showing a distinct need based on the size, complexity, and issues of this specific case. Cost-shifting
`
`may be considered as part of any such request.
`
`11.
`
`Each requesting party shall limit its email production requests to a total of five search
`
`terms per custodian per party. The parties may jointly agree to modify this limit without the Court’s
`
`leave. The Court shall consider contested requests for additional search terms per custodian, upon
`
`showing a distinct need based on the size, complexity, and issues of this specific case. The Court
`
`encourages the parties to confer on a process to test the efficacy of the search terms. The search terms
`
`shall be narrowly tailored to particular issues. Indiscriminate terms, such as the producing company’s
`
`name or its product name, are inappropriate unless combined with narrowing search criteria that
`
`sufficiently reduce the risk of overproduction. A conjunctive combination of multiple words or phrases
`
`(e.g., “computer” and “system”) narrows the search and shall count as a single search term. A
`
`disjunctive combination of multiple words or phrases (e.g., “computer” or “system”) broadens the
`
`search, and thus each word or phrase shall count as a separate search term unless they are variants of
`
`the same word. Use of narrowing search criteria (e.g., “and,” “but not,” “w/x”) is encouraged to limit
`
`the production and shall be considered when determining whether to shift costs for disproportionate
`
`discovery. Should a party serve email production requests with search terms beyond the limits agreed
`
`to by the parties or granted by the Court pursuant to this paragraph, this shall be considered in
`
`determining whether any party shall bear all reasonable costs caused by such additional discovery.
`
`12.
`
`Nothing in this Order prevents the parties from agreeing to use technology assisted
`
`review and other techniques insofar as their use improves the efficacy of discovery. Such topics should
`
`be discussed pursuant to the District’s E-Discovery Guidelines.
`2
`STIPULATED ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY
`OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION
`
`
`
`Case No.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 37 Filed 04/05/19 Page 4 of 5
`
`IT IS SO STIPULATED, through Counsel of Record.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`DATED: April 4, 2019
`
`
`
`DATED: April 4, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Paul Andre
`
`
`
`Paul Andre (State Bar. No. 196585)
`Lisa Kobialka (State Bar No. 191404)
`James Hannah (State Bar No. 237978)
`KRAMER LEVIN NAFTALIS & FRANKEL LLP
`990 Marsh Road
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: (650) 752-1700
`Facsimile: (650) 752-1800
`pandre@kramerlevin.com
`lkobialka@kramerlevin.com
`jhannah@kramerlevin.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`FINJAN, INC.
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Ryan Smith
`
`
`By:
`Ryan Smith (State Bar No. 229323)
`rsmith@wsgr.com
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
`Telephone: (650) 493-9300
`Facsimile: (650) 493-6811
`
`Edward G. Poplawski (State Bar No. 113590)
`epoplawski@wsgr.com
`Olivia M. Kim (State Bar No. 228382)
`okim@wsgr.com
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`Professional Corporation
`633 West Fifth Street, 15th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: (323) 210-2900
`Facsimile: (866) 974-7329
`
`Counsel for Defendant
`QUALYS INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`STIPULATED ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY
`OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION
`
`Case No.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:18-cv-07229-YGR Document 37 Filed 04/05/19 Page 5 of 5
`
`
`
`Attestation
`In accordance with Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I attest that concurrence in the filing of this
`
`document has been obtained from any other signatory to this document.
`
` By: /s/ Paul Andre
`
` Paul Andre
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IT IS ORDERED that the forgoing Agreement is approved. Accordingly, the compliance
`
`hearing set for Friday, April 12, 2019 is VACATED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 5, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
`
`4
`STIPULATED ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY
`OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION
`
`Case No.: 4:18-cv-07229-YGR
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`