Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00906/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-00906-1/pdf.json

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

---

1 

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 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CAMELBAK PRODUCTS, LLC, a Delaware 

limited liability company, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

OSPREY PACKS, INC., a Colorado 

corporation, 

 Defendant. 

Case Number: 3:15-cv-906-PSG 

STIPULATION & ORDER RE: 

DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY 

STORED INFORMATION FOR PATENT 

LITIGATION 

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. 

Case 5:15-cv-00906-PSG Document 33 Filed 06/16/15 Page 1 of 4
 2 

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

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. 

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 three 

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 

Case 5:15-cv-00906-PSG Document 33 Filed 06/16/15 Page 2 of 4
Case 5:15-cv-00906-PSG Document 33 Filed 06/16/15 Page 3 of 4
 1 

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing STIPULATION & ORDER 

RE: DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION FOR PATENT 

LITIGATION was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, 

which will automatically send e-mail notification of such filing to all attorneys of record. 

DATED: June 12, 2015. 

By /s/ Steven M. Wilker 

Steven M. Wilker,

Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 5:15-cv-00906-PSG Document 33 Filed 06/16/15 Page 4 of 4