Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03471/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03471-31/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 20:1401 Education: Handicapped Child Act

---

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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MORGAN HILL CONCERNED 

PARENTS ASSOCIATION, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

EDUCATION, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:11-cv-3471 KJM AC 

ORDER 

 Defendant California Department of Education (“CDE”) has complied with the 

undersigned’s order (ECF No. 182) to file a letter stating (a) the date they will complete the email 

searches using their own seven terms, (b) when the emails will be produced to plaintiffs, and 

(c) the timetable for the initial CALPADS searches and production. ECF No. 187. Plaintiffs 

have filed a letter in response. ECF No. 188. The undersigned has reviewed both letters. 

I. EMAILS 

 CDE states that it expects to begin the production of emails on June 17, 2016, by 

producing from the set of 5,000 documents it has thus far identified “from the fourteen (14) 

priority custodians email boxes,” using its own seven (7) search terms. ECF No. 187 at 1. It 

further states that it will “continue with a rolling production every four weeks,” completing on 

November 4, 2016. Id. CDE explains that it must conduct reviews “for duplicates, PII 

Case 2:11-cv-03471-KJM-AC Document 189 Filed 06/03/16 Page 1 of 4
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 

2

[personally identifying information], and privilege.” Id. It further explains that its “IT 

[information technology] department needs a minimum of 1.5 weeks to process data for 

production.” Id. 

 The court understands CDE’s assertion to mean that it will complete the production of the 

non-privileged portion of the 5,000 documents by June 17, 2016, and that the November 4, 2016 

date refers to other, not-yet-found emails still subject to search (for example, those resident in the 

remaining priority email boxes). This timetable appears to comport with the section of the EDiscovery Protocol timetable that addresses the production of these emails, and which is still in 

full force and effect: 

Upon completion of the searching of any particular data set, CDE 

shall have 45 days to review all search results and, if appropriate, 

claim that certain data is privileged or otherwise should not be 

produced to Plaintiffs. Following the completion of the 45 day 

review process, CDE shall produce to Plaintiffs all data deemed 

non-privileged (or otherwise not to be withheld data) on a 

reasonable rolling basis. 

ECF No. 127-1 at 9 ¶ II(7).1

 Plaintiffs object that CDE’s letter is ambiguous, that it does not address the “network” 

searches, that CDE is only using its own 7 search terms rather than plaintiffs’ 300, that only 14 

priority email boxes are being searched, and that CDE is delaying production while it processes 

for privilege and personally identifying information. 

II. CALPADS 

 CDE asserts that it will be prepared to make a production of materials resulting from its 

initial CALPADS search on July 29, 2016. ECF No. 187 at 2. It asserts that this time is needed 

because of its obligations in meeting is “federal reporting obligations.” Id. & n.3. 

 Plaintiffs object to the timing, asserting that the required searches should take “no more 

than one work day.” ECF No. 188 at 2. They also object to CDE’s assertion that it will redact 

personal identifying information before producing documents. Id. 

 

1

 If CDE means that it will process the 5,000 already-identified emails until November 4, 2016, it 

is advised that this would be in direct violation of the E-Discovery Protocol. 

Case 2:11-cv-03471-KJM-AC Document 189 Filed 06/03/16 Page 2 of 4
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 

3

III. CONCLUSION 

 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. CDE shall produce, no later than June 17, 2016, the non-privileged portion of the 5,000 

emails it described in its May 27, 2016 letter to the court. 

 2. CDE’s production shall be accompanied by a cover letter which generally describes 

what is being produced, together with a Privilege Log of the emails it is not producing. The 

Privilege Log shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(5)(A). For these purposes, the Privilege 

Log need not necessarily be an email-by-email listing, so long as the descriptions offered comply 

with Rule 26(a)(6)(A), that is, the listing and/or descriptions will enable plaintiffs to assess the 

claim of privilege for all the withheld emails. CDE shall simultaneously email a copy of the 

cover letter and the Privilege Log (but not any of the underlying documents) to the undersigned’s 

Chambers at acorders@caed.uscourts.gov. The email’s subject line shall make reference to this 

order. 

 3. CDE shall produce, no later than July 29, 2016, the non-privileged portion of the 

materials responsive to the initial CALPADS search, together with a Privilege Log describing the 

materials it is not producing, in conformity with Rule 26(a)(5)(A). 

 4. At the hearing on the parties’ cross-motions for protective order and to compel (see 

ECF Nos. 185, 186), currently scheduled for June 22, 2016, the parties shall be prepared to 

discuss: 

 a. Why CDE needs to redact PII in light of the Stipulated Protective Order. See 

ECF No. 60; 

 b. Why CDE needs to redact PII even if the receiving environment is certified, or 

alternatively, why the receiving environment needs to be certified if CDE is redacting the PII; 

 c. Whether the November 4, 2016 date for completing the rest of the email 

searches and completing the entire email production is a reasonable date or not; 

 d. Whether CDE’s own seven email search terms are sufficient to obtain the 

materials plaintiffs are seeking; 

//// 

Case 2:11-cv-03471-KJM-AC Document 189 Filed 06/03/16 Page 3 of 4
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 

4

 e. When CDE should commence and complete searches and production of the 

emails resident with the remaining priority custodians; 

 f. Whether the July 29, 2016 date for the CALPADS production is reasonable or 

not; and 

 g. Any other matter raised by the parties’ letters to the court (ECF Nos. 187, 188). 

 5. On August 1, 2016, the parties shall each file a separate Discovery Status Report, not 

to exceed three (3) pages in length, describing the status of discovery efforts. No party shall file a 

response to any other party’s report. The parties shall thereafter file a Discovery Status Report 

every two months, commencing October 1, 2016, describing the status of discovery efforts since 

the last report. 

 6. Every discovery production, by every party, shall be accompanied by a cover letter 

and, where applicable, a Privilege Log that complies with Rule 26(a)(5)(A). The cover letter and 

Privilege Log (but not any of the underlying documents) shall simultaneously be emailed to the 

undersigned’s Chambers at acorders@caed.uscourts.gov. The email’s subject line shall make 

reference to this order. 

DATED: June 3, 2016 

Case 2:11-cv-03471-KJM-AC Document 189 Filed 06/03/16 Page 4 of 4