Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04417/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-04417-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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 

ESI STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 3:15-CV-04417-JST 

sf-3604626 

JAMES P. BENNETT (CA SBN 65179) 

JBennett@mofo.com 

RACHEL KREVANS (CA SBN 116421)

RKrevans@mofo.com 

BARBARA BARATH (CA SBN 268146) 

BBarath@mofo.com 

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, California 94105-2482 

Telephone: 415.268.7000 

Facsimile: 415.268.7522 

Attorneys for Defendant 

APPLE INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

ZEROCLICK, LLC, a Texas limited liability 

company, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

APPLE INC., a California corporation, 

Defendant. 

Case No. 3:15-CV-04417-JST

ESI STIPULATION AND 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Date: January 13, 2016 

Time: 2:00 PM 

Place: Courtroom 9, 19th Floor 

Judge: Jon S. Tigar 

Case 4:15-cv-04417-JST Document 39 Filed 02/17/16 Page 1 of 8
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 

ESI STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 3:15-CV-04417-JST 1 

sf-3604626 

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. Proportionality and ESI Guidelines. To further the application of the 

proportionality standard set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2(C), requests for production of ESI and 

related responses should be reasonably targeted, clear, and as specific as practicable. Where the 

discovery request is potentially burdensome to the responding party, the parties should consider 

options such as staging discovery and sampling, in an attempt to reduce the costs of production. 

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. A party’s meaningful compliance with this 

Order and efforts to promote efficiency and reduce costs will be considered in cost-shifting 

determinations. 

4. 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. 

5. General ESI. 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”). The limits discussed in Paragraphs 3 to 5 above shall apply to General 

ESI. Nothing contained herein, however, shall limit any party’s obligation to disclose any 

document that that party intends to rely upon to support any claim or defense, regardless of 

whether such document constitutes ESI, General ESI or Email. 

6. Email. To obtain Email, parties must propound specific requests. Email 

production requests shall only be propounded for specific issues, rather than general discovery of 

a product or business. 

Case 4:15-cv-04417-JST Document 39 Filed 02/17/16 Page 2 of 8
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 

ESI STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 3:15-CV-04417-JST 2 

sf-3604626 

7. 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. 

8. 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. The parties shall make good faith efforts to 

identify appropriate email custodians and produce email on the agreed upon schedule, but reserve 

the right to seek email from additional email custodians identified through discovery. 

9. The parties shall meet and confer to reach agreement on the list of custodians for 

purposes of collection, review and production of Email. In connection with the meet and confer 

process, each party shall provide a proposed list of individual custodians who are knowledgeable 

about and were involved with the core issues or subjects in this case (e.g., the asserted patents, the 

development, design and operation of the accused products, and sales, marketing and other 

damages-related information for the accused products). The parties then shall meet and confer to 

reach agreement on document custodians. 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. 

Email, shall be collected for each individual custodian from the personal computers, network 

resources, and other electronic devices that those individuals use for work purposes. 

10. The parties shall also meet and confer to reach agreement on search terms to be 

used for electronic searches of the files from those custodians. 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 

Case 4:15-cv-04417-JST Document 39 Filed 02/17/16 Page 3 of 8
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 

ESI STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 3:15-CV-04417-JST 3 

sf-3604626 

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. Notwithstanding prior agreement on the search terms to be used for 

electronic searches, should a search produce an unreasonably large number of non-responsive or 

irrelevant results, the parties shall (at the producing party’s request) meet and confer to discuss 

application of further negative search restrictions (e.g., if a single search was for “card” and 

ninety percent of the resulting documents came from the irrelevant term “credit card,” a negative 

limitation to ignore documents only returned as a result of “credit card” may be applied to remove 

these documents). The party receiving production shall not unreasonably oppose such further 

restrictions designed to filter immaterial search results. 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. 

11. 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. 

12. Format for production of documents – documents existing in electronic 

format. Except as otherwise provided for in this Stipulation, all documents existing in electronic 

format shall be produced in multiple page, searchable PDF format at a resolution of at least 300 

dpi in accordance with the following: 

Case 4:15-cv-04417-JST Document 39 Filed 02/17/16 Page 4 of 8
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 

ESI STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 3:15-CV-04417-JST 4 

sf-3604626 

A. PDF files shall be produced along with Concordance/Opticon image load 

files that indicate the beginning and ending of each document. 

B. For documents which already exist in PDF format prior to production (i.e., 

which the producing party receives from a client or third party in PDF format), the producing 

party may provide them in that same PDF format, whether searchable or non-searchable. For 

documents converted to PDF format prior to production, the producing party shall make 

reasonable efforts to convert to searchable PDF. 

C. Metadata. Load files should include, where applicable, the information 

listed in the Table of Metadata Fields, attached as Exhibit A. However, the parties are not 

obligated to include metadata for any document that does not contain such metadata in the 

original, if it is not possible to automate the creation of metadata when the document is collected. 

The parties reserve their rights to object to any request for the creation of metadata for documents 

that do not contain metadata in the original. 

D. Production media and encryption of productions. Unless otherwise 

agreed, the parties shall provide document productions in the following manner: The producing 

party shall provide the production data on CDs, DVDs, external hard drives, or SFTP, as 

appropriate. The producing party shall encrypt the production data using WinRAR encryption, 

and the producing party shall forward the password to decrypt the production data separately 

from the CD, DVD, external drive, or SFTP on which the production data is saved. 

13. Format for production of documents – hardcopy or paper documents. All 

documents that are hardcopy or paper files shall be scanned and produced in the same manner as 

documents existing in electronic format, above. 

14. Source code. This Stipulation does not govern the format for production of source 

code, which shall be produced pursuant to the relevant provision of the Protective Order. 

15. Parent and child emails. The parties shall produce email attachments 

sequentially after the parent email. 

16. Native files. The parties will meet and confer to discuss requests for the 

production of files in native format, on a case-by-case basis. If the parties are unable to reach 

Case 4:15-cv-04417-JST Document 39 Filed 02/17/16 Page 5 of 8
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 

ESI STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 3:15-CV-04417-JST 5 

sf-3604626 

agreement with regard to requests for additional documents in native-file format, the parties 

reserve the right to seek relief from the Court. Documents produced natively shall be represented 

in the set of imaged documents by a slipsheet indicating the production identification number and 

confidentiality designation for the native file that is being produced. 

17. Databases. Certain types of databases are dynamic in nature and will often 

contain information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of 

admissible evidence. Thus, a party may opt to produce relevant and responsive information from 

databases in an alternate form, such as a report or data table. These reports or data tables will be 

produced in a static format. 

The parties agree to identify the specific databases, by name, that contain the relevant and 

responsive information that parties produce. 

18. Requests for hi-resolution or color documents. The parties agree to respond to 

reasonable and specific requests for the production of higher resolution or color images. Nothing 

in this Stipulation shall preclude a producing party from objecting to such requests as 

unreasonable in number, timing or scope, provided that a producing party shall not object if the 

document as originally produced is illegible or difficult to read. The producing party shall have 

the option of responding by producing a native-file version of the document. If a dispute arises 

with regard to requests for higher resolution or color images, the parties will meet and confer in 

good faith to try to resolve it. 

19. Foreign language documents. All documents shall be produced in their original 

language. Where a requested document exists in a foreign language and the producing party also 

has an English-language version of that document that it prepared for non-litigation purposes 

prior to filing of the lawsuit, the producing party shall produce both the original document and all 

English-language versions. In addition, if the producing party has a certified translation of a 

foreign-language document that is being produced, (whether or not the translation is prepared for 

purposes of litigation) the producing party shall produce both the original document and the 

certified translation. Nothing in this agreement shall require a producing party to prepare a 

translation, certified or otherwise, for foreign language documents that are produced in discovery. 

Case 4:15-cv-04417-JST Document 39 Filed 02/17/16 Page 6 of 8
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 

ESI STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 3:15-CV-04417-JST 6 

sf-3604626 

20. Document preservation. The parties shall preserve all hardcopy documents and 

reasonably accessible ESI relating to the issues relevant to this action. The parties shall exercise 

reasonable diligence to ensure that document retention notices are distributed to custodians who 

are likely to have relevant documents. Furthermore, the parties shall not intentionally destroy any 

relevant documents that they know or reasonably suspect contain relevant information. The 

parties shall meet and confer regarding any reasonable additional document preservation 

measures that may be required to ensure that relevant information is not destroyed during the 

pendency of this litigation. 

Dated: February 12, 2016 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

/s/ Barbara Barath Barbara Barath 

Attorneys for Defendant 

APPLE INC. 

Dated: February 12, 2016 RUSS AUGUST & KABAT 

/s/ Brian Ledahl 

Brian Ledahl 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

ZEROCLICK, LLC 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February ____, 2016 

Hon. Jon S. Tigar 

United States District Court 

17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

 Judge Jon S. Tigar 

Case 4:15-cv-04417-JST Document 39 Filed 02/17/16 Page 7 of 8
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 

ESI STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

Case No. 3:15-CV-04417-JST 7 

sf-3604626 

ATTESTATION OF E-FILED SIGNATURE

I, Barbara Barath, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this 

ESI Stipulation and [Proposed] Order. In compliance with Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest 

that Brian Ledahl has concurred in this filing. 

Dated: February 12, 2016 By: /s/ Barbara Barath 

 BARBARA BARATH 

Attorneys for Apple Inc.

Case 4:15-cv-04417-JST Document 39 Filed 02/17/16 Page 8 of 8