Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH Document 71 Filed 06/05/24 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 2048
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`ORCA SECURITY LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`WIZ, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 23-758 (JLH)
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY
`OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION
`
`This Stipulation and [Proposed] Order supplements the Default Standard For
`
`Discovery Including Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”) (the “Default
`
`Standard For Discovery”), as incorporated in the Scheduling Order. D.I. 33 at paragraph 1.
`
`a.
`
`Privilege Logs.
`
`(i)
`
`The parties will serve logs for documents produced from the parties’
`
`agreed-upon custodians and responsive to requests for production that are withheld or redacted on
`
`the basis of any privilege or protection, such as attorney-client privilege, work product protection,
`
`common interest or joint defense protection, or other immunities, in accordance with D. Del.
`
`LR 26.2. The log of withheld documents shall be due 10 business days after the deadline for
`
`substantial completion of document production. The parties shall identify on their privilege logs
`
`where an author or recipient of a withheld document is an attorney or a representative of the
`
`attorney (e.g., with an asterisk or similar). In the case of e-mail, any email family where the entire
`
`family is withheld in full based on privilege grounds may be logged as a single entry, provided
`
`that the privilege description includes sufficient information to identify both the parent email and
`
`its attachments. Any e-mail chain (i.e., a series of e-mails linked together by e-mail responses and
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH Document 71 Filed 06/05/24 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 2049
`
`forwarding) that is withheld or redacted on the grounds of privilege, immunity or any similar claim
`
`shall be logged as one document and shall be identified by the top-most e-mail in the chain that is
`
`withheld or redacted. The parties shall not be required to log identical copies of an e-mail that is
`
`included in a chain that has been logged in accordance with this paragraph. Each member of a
`
`family (i.e., e-mail attaching memorandum) that is withheld or redacted on the grounds of
`
`privilege, immunity or any similar claim shall be identified on the log separately. Privilege logs
`
`shall contain the following columns:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Privilege Log ID No.;
`
`Production Bates No;
`
`Document Type;
`
`Date;
`
`From/Author;
`
`To/Recipient(s);
`
`Other Senders and Recipients (or Other Participants);
`
`Privilege Asserted: Attorney-Client, Work Product, Joint Defense, etc.;
`
`Privilege Description; and
`
`10. Whether the document is redacted.
`
`(ii) With respect to information generated after the filing of the
`
`complaint, parties are not required to include any such information in privilege logs.
`
`(iii) Activities undertaken in compliance with the duty to preserve
`
`information are protected from disclosure and discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A) and (8).
`
`
`
`
`
`2 
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH Document 71 Filed 06/05/24 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 2050
`
`2.
`
`Specific E-Discovery Issues.
`
`a.
`
`Electronic Correspondence (Email and Instant Messaging Services).
`
`General production requests under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 34 and 45 shall not include
`
`email or other forms of electronic correspondence, including instant messages from Slack and
`
`other non-email messaging applications (collectively “Electronic Correspondence”). To obtain
`
`Electronic Correspondence, parties must propound specific Electronic Correspondence production
`
`requests. Electronic Correspondence 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. Each requesting party shall limit its Electronic Correspondence production
`
`requests to a total of ten (10) custodians per producing party for all such requests.1 Absent a
`
`showing of good cause by a requesting party, a requesting party’s four (4) priority custodians in
`
`Section 3(a)(i) shall be selected from those identified pursuant to Paragraph 3.a of the Default
`
`Standard For Discovery or identified in a Party’s Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures. The parties may
`
`jointly agree to modify the number of total or priority custodians without the Court’s leave. The
`
`date ranges and search terms need not be the same for each custodian.  By default, absent good
`
`cause and/or agreement between the parties, the parties will limit the number of terms to no more
`
`than ten (10) search terms per custodian. Focused terms, rather than over-broad terms (e.g.,
`
` 
`1 The Parties’ stipulation to the total custodians per producing party does not waive a producing
`party’s right to object pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) to a requesting party’s Electronic
`Correspondence requests directed to a custodian that the producing party contends, for example,
`lacks personal knowledge of relevant facts or some unique knowledge that is relevant to this
`Action. For purposes of Electronic Correspondence requests only, custodians identified by a Party
`pursuant to Paragraph 3.a of the Default Standard For Discovery or identified in a Party’s
`Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures are presumed to have personal knowledge of relevant facts or
`some unique knowledge that is relevant to this Action.
`
`3 
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH Document 71 Filed 06/05/24 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 2051
`
`product and company names), shall be employed. The parties agree that Electronic
`
`Correspondence production requests shall occur on the dates set forth in Section 3 below.
`
`(i)
`
`Email. Email shall be collected in a manner that maintains reliable
`
`email metadata and structure. Whenever possible, email shall be collected from the producing
`
`party’s email store or server. Metadata and “header fields” shall be extracted from email messages.
`
`Email collections shall include calendar meetings and appointments.
`
`(ii)
`
`Instant Messaging Services (e.g. Slack). Instant messages,
`
`including messages from Slack and other non-email messaging applications maintained in a server
`
`of the Producing Party dedicated to instant messaging, shall be collected in a manner that maintains
`
`reliable metadata and structure. For the avoidance of doubt, absent a showing of good cause by a
`
`Requesting Party, the items listed in Schedule A of the Default Standard For Discovery need not
`
`be collected. Metadata shall be extracted from the instant messages and produced in accordance
`
`with the metadata described in paragraph 2.e. of the Default Standard For Discovery. The
`
`Producing Party shall only produce an attachment(s) to instant messages to the extent the messages
`
`refer to such an attachment(s). The Receiving Party shall have the right to request additional
`
`attachment(s) to instant messages if a produced instant message has an attachment that is not
`
`produced. Each party reserves the right to object to or challenge the format in which the other
`
`party produces instant messages. The parties shall produce instant messages in a format consistent
`
`with their discovery obligations and that provides sufficient context in a single thread for any
`
`responsive messages pursuant to the following rule: (1) the parties shall produce the entirety of
`
`any conversation containing 20 or fewer total messages that has at least one responsive message;
`
`and (2) the parties shall produce ten messages above and ten below each responsive message for
`
`conversations containing more than 20 total messages.
`
`4 
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH Document 71 Filed 06/05/24 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 2052
`
`b.
`
`De-duplication. ESI shall be de-duplicated globally across all custodians
`
`and data sources (both vertically or horizontally). Hard copy documents should not be de-
`
`duplicated. All custodians who were in possession of a de-duplicated document must be identified.
`
`Exact duplicate documents shall only be identified based on individual document MD5 or SHA-1
`
`hash values. However, removal of duplicate documents shall be done at the family level (e.g., a
`
`standalone document shall not be removed if it has the exact duplicate as part of an Email family.)
`
`c.
`
`Redaction. If a file that originates in Electronic Correspondence needs to
`
`be redacted before production, the file will be rendered in TIFF, and the TIFF will be redacted and
`
`produced. ESI that does not render well (e.g., spreadsheets) or cannot be rendered in image format
`
`(e.g., audio files) can be redacted in native format. The producing party will provide searchable
`
`text for those portions of the document that have not been redacted.
`
`3.
`
`Discovery Deadlines.
`
`a.
`
`The parties will adhere to the discovery deadlines set forth in the Scheduling
`
`Order (D.I. 33). The parties further stipulate to the following interim discovery deadlines:
`
`(i)
`
`By June 11, 2024, each Party may serve Priority Electronic
`
`Correspondence production requests identifying up to four (4) priority custodians (“Priority
`
`Requests”). For the avoidance of doubt, priority custodians count towards a party’s ten (10) total
`
`custodians (see Section 2.a above).
`
`(ii)
`
`By June 25, 2024, each Party will provide unique, deduplicated, hit
`
`counts for each proposed search term and identify objections, if any, to the requesting Party’s
`
`Priority Requests. The parties will confer to try to reach agreement on the search terms to be
`
`applied to each custodian’s ESI.
`
`5 
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH Document 71 Filed 06/05/24 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 2053
`
`(iii) By July 9, 2024, to the extent the parties are unable to reach
`
`agreement, the parties may submit Priority Request disputes for resolution using the Court’s
`
`motion for teleconference procedure set forth in Section 8(g) of the Scheduling Order (D.I. 33)
`
`and pursuant to the Court’s local rules.
`
`(iv) By August 20, 2024, the parties will have substantially completed
`
`production of all non-privileged custodial ESI responsive to the parties’ Priority Requests, subject
`
`to any unresolved objections.
`
`(v) Within 21 days of
`
`receipt of any
`
`remaining Electronic
`
`Correspondence production requests (“Non-Priority Requests”) or by September 3, 2024,
`
`whichever is later, a producing party will identify objections, if any, to the requesting Party’s Non-
`
`Priority Requests and, to the extent the producing party does not object to the custodian
`
`themselves, provide unique, deduplicated, hit counts for each proposed search term. The parties
`
`will confer to try to reach agreement on the custodians, search terms to be applied to each
`
`custodian’s ESI, and the timing of any such productions. To the extent the parties are unable to
`
`reach agreement, the parties may submit disputes for resolution using the Court’s motion for
`
`teleconference procedure set forth in Section 8(g) of the Scheduling Order (D.I. 33) and pursuant
`
`to the Court’s local rules.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6 
`
`

`

`Case 1:23-cv-00758-JLH Document 71 Filed 06/05/24 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 2054
`
`IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.
`
`MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT &TUNNELL LLP
`
`RICHARD, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
`
`/s/ Rodger D. Smith II
`___________________________________
`Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
`Rodger D. Smith II (#3778)
`Cameron P. Clark (#6647)
`1201 North Market Street
`P.O. Box 1347
`Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
`(302) 658-9200
`jblumenfeld@morrisnichols.com
`rsmith@morrisnichols.com
`cclark@morrisnichols.com
`
`/s/ Kelly E. Farnan
`
`Frederick L. Cottrell, III (#2555)
`Kelly E. Farnan (#4395)
`Christine D. Haynes (#4697)
`One Rodney Square
`920 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 651-7700
`cottrell@rlf.com
`farnan@rlf.com
`haynes@rlf.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Orca Security Ltd.
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Wiz, Inc.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Douglas E. Lumish
`Lucas Lonergan
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`140 Scott Drive
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`(650) 328-4600
`
`Blake R. Davis
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`(415) 391-0600
`
`Kristina D. McKenna
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`200 Clarendon Street
`Boston, MA 02116
`(617) 948-6000
`
`May 30, 2024
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Jordan R. Jaffe
`Catherine Lacy
`Callie Davidson
`Alex Miller
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`One Market Plaza
`Spear Tower, Suite 3300
`San Francisco, CA 94105
`(415) 947-2000
`
`Praatika Prasad
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C.
`1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
`New York, NY 10019-6022
`(212) 999-5800
`
`June
`SO ORDERED this ____ day of _________________ 2024.
`5th
`
`__________________________________
`The Honorable Jennifer L. Hall
`United States District Court Judge
`
`7 
`
`