Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01301/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01301-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:0271 Patent Infringement

---

1

3:19-cv-01301-CAB-BGS

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IMPACT ENGINE, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOOGLE LLC,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-01301-CAB-BGS

ORDER ON JOINT SUBMISSION 

RE [PROPOSED] ORDER 

GOVERNING DISCOVERY OF 

ELECTRONICALLY STORED 

INFORMATION

[ECF NO. 54]

Before the Court is the Joint Submission Regarding (Proposed) Order Governing 

Discovery of Electronically Stored Information. (ECF No. 54). In this joint submission, 

the parties raised two discovery disputes regarding the preservation of electronically 

stored information (“ESI”) and ESI search protocol.

DISCUSSION

I. Preservation of Instant Messenger and/or Chat Applications

This dispute arose from the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. It was presented in 

their Joint Submission Regarding (Proposed) Order Governing Discovery of 

Electronically Stored Information. (ECF No. 54). Impact Engine, Inc., (“Impact”),

wants the Court to order Google LLC, (“Google”) to preserve ESI from instant 

messaging and/or chat applications that employees used during the scope of their work 

Case 3:19-cv-01301-CAB-DEB Document 62 Filed 04/21/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

3:19-cv-01301-CAB-BGS

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

related to the Accused Products. (ECF No. 54 at 2). Impact argues that Google should 

be required to preserve this information because instant messaging and/or chat 

applications are likely to contain relevant information since it is a common method for 

employees to communicate. (ECF No. 54 at 2; ECF No. 54-1 at 6, ¶ 15(a)(ii)). On the 

other hand, Google wants this Court to order that such ESI discovery does not need to be 

preserved because the burden of preserving them is not proportional to the needs of the 

case, since it is unlikely to contain relevant information that would not otherwise be 

included in email. (ECF No. 54 at 5; ECF No. 54-1 at 9, ¶¶ 19(a)–(b)(iii)).

Impact requests this Court to enter a preservation order. (ECF No. 54 at 2).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) requires the parties to discuss preservation issues, 

but the requirement that the parties discuss preservation does not imply that courts should 

routinely enter preservation orders. “A preservation order entered over objections should 

be narrowly tailored.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) advisory committee’s note to 2006 

amendment. “Ex parte preservation orders should issue only in exceptional 

circumstances.” Id.

Google in effect is asking the Court to grant a protective order. See Pippins v. 

KPMG LLP, No. 11 CIV. 0377 CM JLC, 2011 WL 4701849, at *4–5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 

2011); aff’d 2012 WL 370321 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2012). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

26(c) authorizes a federal court to issue a protective order “for good cause . . . to protect a 

party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or 

expense.” The party seeking a protective order pursuant to Rule 26(c) bears the burden to 

establish the existence of good cause necessitating the order. See Gambale v. Deutsche 

Bank AG, 377 F.3d 133, 142 (2d Cir. 2004). “Good cause exists when a party seeking the 

protective order can articulate ‘a clearly defined, specific and serious injury’ that will 

result in the absence of the order.” See Pippins, 2011 WL 4701849, at *4 (citation 

omitted). “Although the party seeking the protective order bears the burden of 

establishing good cause, the court must weigh the interests of both parties in considering 

the necessity and scope of the order.” Id. (citing Mitchell v. Fishbein, 227 F.R.D. 239, 

Case 3:19-cv-01301-CAB-DEB Document 62 Filed 04/21/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

3:19-cv-01301-CAB-BGS

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

245 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (“[U]nder Rule 26(c), the appropriateness of protective relief from 

discovery depends upon a balancing of the litigation needs of the discovering party and 

any countervailing protectable interests of the party from whom discovery is sought.”).

By presenting this dispute in their Proposed ESI Order, both parties have failed to 

follow this Court’s chambers rules regarding the procedure for discovery disputes, which 

is what this dispute is. See Judge Skomal’s Chambers’ Rule V. The Court has not 

authorized the parties to bring what appears to be a joint motion for either a preservation 

order or a protective order. Notwithstanding, neither party has adequately addressed the 

merits of their respective motions. Therefore, the Court DENIES both Parties’ motions 

without prejudice.1 

II. Parties’ Dispute over ESI Search Protocol

The parties have also not followed this Court’s procedure for bringing discovery 

disputes with regards to ESI search protocol. See Judge Skomal’s Chambers’ Rule V. 

Since this dispute regards ESI, it is a discovery dispute. Notwithstanding, the parties’ 

disagreement is centered around the number of custodians for email and non-email ESI 

searches, and the number of search terms per custodian. (ECF No. 54). Within this 

disagreement, the parties compared their ESI Order with this District’s Model Order and 

the Model Order Governing Discovery of ESI. (ECF No. 54 at 3–8). On March 2, 2020, 

the Model Order for ESI and the Model Order Governing Discovery of ESI were deleted 

from the Patent Local Rules. S.D.C.A. General Order 727. Therefore, those orders no 

longer control ESI in this District. 

 

1 The duty to preserve begins when a party reasonably should have known that the evidence is relevant 

to anticipated litigation. See In re Napster, 462 F.Supp.2d 1060, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2006); see also Wm. T. 

Thompson Co. v. General Nutrition Corp., Inc., 593 F.Supp. 1443, 1455 (C.D. Cal. 1984) (“While a 

litigant is under no duty to keep or retain every document in its possession once a complaint is filed, it is 

under a duty to preserve what it knows, or reasonably should know, is relevant in the action, is 

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, is reasonably likely to be 

requested during discovery, and/or is the subject of a pending discovery request.”). 

Case 3:19-cv-01301-CAB-DEB Document 62 Filed 04/21/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

3:19-cv-01301-CAB-BGS

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

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, which governs requests for the production of

documents, does not differentiate between information stored on paper or on an 

electronic medium. It requires the requesting party to request “information.” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 34(a)(1). The producing party must produce the requested information or object 

to the request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 addresses 

electronically stored information to the extent that a party may object to the requested 

form of production of electronically stored information and provides a default for the 

form of production. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(D); Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E). Unlike the 

Model Order for ESI, nothing in Rule 34 requires a requesting party to identify 

custodians or search terms. The Model Order for ESI, in that respect, was contrary to the 

ordinary progress of civil discovery in the federal courts.

The parties are best situated to evaluate the procedures, methodologies, and 

technologies appropriate for preserving and producing their own electronically stored 

information. The parties should seek to reach agreement regarding production of 

electronically stored information. Moreover, the world of electronic discovery has 

moved well beyond search terms. While search terms have their place, they may not be 

suited to all productions. Search terms are now disfavored in many cases due to the rapid 

advancement of technology and software tools, rendering the ESI Model Order’s reliance

on search terms obsolete. Order on Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute 

Regarding ESI at 4, Nuvasive, Inc. v. Alphatec Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-0347 

(S.D. Cal. Argued Oct. 7, 2019) (No. 198); See also Moore v. Publicis Groupe, 287 

F.R.D. 182, 189–91 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). 

Therefore, this Court will not decide the number of custodians that are appropriate 

in this case, nor the number of search terms per custodian. Instead, the Plaintiff must 

request information, regardless of how or where it is maintained by Defendants, which 

Defendants must address as required by Rule 34, and vice versa. That is discovery: a 

party requests information and the burden is on the producing party to locate and produce 

it or object legitimately to production. 

Case 3:19-cv-01301-CAB-DEB Document 62 Filed 04/21/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

3:19-cv-01301-CAB-BGS

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

The parties are free to modify their Proposed ESI Order as they see fit. To the 

extent they cannot resolve this dispute, this Court’s order then controls. In the future all 

discovery disputes are governed by the Chambers Rules, and the parties are expected to 

follow them. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 21, 2020

Case 3:19-cv-01301-CAB-DEB Document 62 Filed 04/21/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5