Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02095/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-02095-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 33:1319 Clean Water 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

JOHN C. CRUDEN

Assistant Attorney General

ANDREW J. DOYLE (FL Bar No. 84948)

JOHN THOMAS H. DO (CA Bar No. 285075)

United States Department of Justice

Environment and Natural Resources Division

P.O. Box 7611

Washington, DC 20044 / (202) 514-4427 or 514-2593

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff

M. REED HOPPER (CA Bar No. 131291)

ANTHONY L. FRANÇOIS (CA Bar 184100)

Pacific Legal Foundation

930 G Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814 / (916) 419-7111 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counterclaim-Defendants

(See infra for additional counsel of record.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DUARTE NURSERY, INC., a California 

Corporation; and JOHN DUARTE, an 

individual, 

 Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF 

ENGINEERS,

 Defendant.

No. 2:13−cv−02095−KJM−DAD

 STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING

 DISCOVERY PROCEDURE

__________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 

 Counterclaim- Plaintiff,

v.

DUARTE NURSERY, INC., a California 

Corporation; and JOHN DUARTE, an 

individual, 

 Counterclaim- Defendants.

 

 

 

Case 2:13-cv-02095-KJM-DB Document 58 Filed 01/30/15 Page 1 of 11
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

WHEREAS, the Parties mutually seek to reduce the time, expense and other burdens of 

discovery of certain electronically stored information and privileged materials, as described 

further below, and to better define the scope of their obligations with respect to preserving such 

information and materials;

WHEREAS, the Parties enter into this Stipulation with the request that the Court enter it 

as an Order;

NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby STIPULATED and ORDERED:

A. Definitions

1. “Duplicate,” when used to describe either an electronic or hard copy document, 

means that the document does not show at least one facial change, such as the inclusion of 

highlights, underlining, marginalia, total pages, attachments, markings, revisions, or the 

inclusion of tracked changes. 

2. “ESI” means electronically stored information.

3. “Parties” means the parties to this litigation, including their employees and 

agents.

B. Electronically Stored Information.

1. Preservation Not Required for Electronically Stored Information That Is Not 

Reasonably Accessible. 

a. Except as provided in subparagraph b below, the Parties need not preserve 

the following categories of electronically stored information for this litigation:

i. Data stored in a backup system for the purpose of system recovery 

or information restoration, including but not limited to, disaster recovery backup tapes, 

continuity of operations systems, and data or system mirrors or shadows, if such data are 

routinely deleted or written over in accordance with an established routine system maintenance 

practice; 

ii. Voicemail messages;

iii. Instant messages, such as messages sent on AOL Instant 

Messenger or Microsoft Communicator; 

Case 2:13-cv-02095-KJM-DB Document 58 Filed 01/30/15 Page 2 of 11
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

iv. Text messages, such as cell phone to cell phone SMS messages;

v. Electronic mail sent to or from a personal digital assistant 

(“PDA”), smartphone (e.g., BlackBerry, iPhone), or tablet (e.g. iPad) provided that a copy of 

such email is routinely saved elsewhere;

vi. Other electronic data stored on a PDA, smartphone, or tablet such 

as calendar or contact data or notes, provided that a copy of such information is routinely saved 

elsewhere;

vii. Logs of calls made from cellular phones;

viii. Deleted computer files, whether fragmented or whole; 

ix. Data stored in random access memory (“RAM”), cache memory, 

or in temporary or cache files, including internet history, web browser cache and cookie files, 

wherever located;

x. Data stored on photocopiers, scanners, and fax machines;

xi. Server, system, or network logs;

xii. Electronic data temporarily stored by scientific equipment or 

attached devices, provided that the data that is ordinarily preserved as part of a laboratory report 

is, in fact, preserved in its ordinary location and form; and

xiii. Data stored on legacy systems that have been retired, so long as 

those retired legacy systems do not contain unique data, i.e., data that can only be found on those 

systems. 

b. Notwithstanding subparagraph a. above, if on the date of this agreement 

either Party has a Policy that results in the routine preservation of any of the categories of 

information identified in subparagraph a, such Party shall continue to preserve such information 

in accordance with its Policy.

c. Nothing in this Stipulation and Order prevents any Party from asserting, in 

accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that other categories of ESI are not 

reasonably accessible within the meaning of Rule 26(b)(2)(B).

Case 2:13-cv-02095-KJM-DB Document 58 Filed 01/30/15 Page 3 of 11
3

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. Preservation Required for Certain Subject Matters. The Parties agree to preserve, 

for the purpose of this litigation, documents and ESI that are: (a) related to the subjects set forth 

in paragraph F.2.a. & b. of the Joint Status Report and Discovery Plan (ECF No. 56); and (b) not 

exempted from preservation requirements pursuant to the preceding paragraphs of this Part B. 

3. Procedures for Production: The following procedures apply to producing 

documents or ESI. Compliance with these procedures shall constitute compliance with Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2)(E).

a. Paper documents: Documents printed on paper that is 11 x 17 inches or 

smaller shall be scanned and produced on CD-ROM, DVD-ROM, or external hard drive. 

Documents printed on larger paper may, at the Producing Party’s discretion, be produced on 

paper. Documents produced on paper must be produced as they are kept in the ordinary course 

of business or must be organized and labeled to correspond to the categories in the request; 

alternatively, Documents produced on paper may be organized by custodian and maintained in 

the order in which they appear in the files of the custodian.

b. Paper documents that are produced on disc shall be scanned as 300 dpi 

PDF files, in color unless the original is solely black and white. 

c. Word, WordPerfect, and other word processing files will be converted to 

searchable PDF files. If the document contains comments or tracked changes that are not part of 

the ordinary text, the PDF shall be generated based on how the document appears when first 

opened using view settings contained in the file, and the receiving Party shall have the option, 

after reviewing the produced PDF, to request the native file;

d. Microsoft PowerPoint files will be produced in searchable PDFs. The 

receiving Party may, after reviewing the produced PDFs, request the native files;

e. E-mail and attachments should be converted to searchable PDFs. E-mail 

attachments shall be processed as though they were separate documents, and a cross reference 

file shall include a field in which the producing Party shall identify, for each e-mail, the Bates 

range of any attachment;

Case 2:13-cv-02095-KJM-DB Document 58 Filed 01/30/15 Page 4 of 11
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

f. Microsoft Excel files and other spreadsheets will be converted to 

searchable PDFs. The receiving Party may, after reviewing the spreadsheets, request the native 

files;

g. Digital photographs will be produced as full color image files at their 

original resolution with Bates numbers branded onto them;

h. Before any Party produces any other kinds of electronic data, including 

data from databases, CAD drawings, GIS data, videos, etc., the Parties will meet and confer to 

determine a reasonably useable form for the production.

i. Except as stated above, a Party need not produce the same ESI in more 

than one form.

4. Duplicates.

a. Deduplication of e-mail. The Parties may use a widely accepted method of 

deduplication, including comparing the to, from, date, and time fields of e-mails and may only 

produce one copy from each set of duplicates. 

b. Deduplication of ESI other than e-mail. With respect to ESI other than email, the Parties may use a widely accepted method of deduplication, such as using MD5 or 

SHA-1 hash values calculated before the files are collected for discovery and may produce only 

one copy for each custodian that has possession or custody of the file.

C. Limitations on Discovery and Evidence.

1. No Discovery. Except as provided below in paragraph C.2, the Parties shall not 

seek discovery of items that need not be preserved pursuant to paragraphs B.1-2 above or metadata. 

2. No Offering in Evidence without Disclosure. The Parties shall not offer into 

evidence for any purpose in this litigation any item that need not be preserved pursuant to 

paragraphs B.1-2 above or meta-data, unless the Party has disclosed the item pursuant to Rule 26 

with adequate time to allow other Parties to conduct discovery on the item.

Case 2:13-cv-02095-KJM-DB Document 58 Filed 01/30/15 Page 5 of 11
5

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

D. Preparation of Privilege Log.

1. Embedded e-mails. An e-mail may be treated as a single document regardless of 

the number of embedded emails contained within the message body. The privilege log for an email withheld under a claim of privilege, to the extent any is required, shall identify the author, 

recipient(s), subject, dates and times based on the top-level message, and shall not include data 

from any e-mail embedded in the message body. However, if an e-mail contains both privileged 

and non-privileged communications, the non-privileged communications must be produced. This 

requirement should be satisfied by producing the original of the embedded, non-privileged email or it may be satisfied by producing a redacted version of the privileged e-mail.

E. Protection of Privileges.

Pursuant to Rules 16(b) and 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and pursuant 

to Rule 502 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. This Order invokes the protections afforded by Rule 502(d) of the Federal Rules 

of Evidence. Accordingly, the provisions in Rule 502(b) will not apply to the disclosure of 

communications or information in discovery in this matter.

2. The various claims and defenses in this action may require each Party to review 

and to disclose potentially voluminous information and documents, including ESI, through the 

discovery process. Page-by-page preproduction privilege review may impose an undue burden 

on the Parties’ resources. 

3. Each Party is entitled to decide the appropriate degree of care to exercise in 

reviewing materials for privilege, taking into account the volume and sensitivity of the materials, 

the demands of the litigation, and the resources that the Party can make available. Irrespective of 

the care that is actually exercised in reviewing materials for privilege, the Court hereby orders 

pursuant to Rule 502(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence that disclosure of privileged or 

protected information or documents in discovery conducted in this litigation will not constitute 

or be deemed a waiver or forfeiture—in this or any other federal or state proceeding—of any 

claims of attorney-client privilege or work product protection that the disclosing Party would 

Case 2:13-cv-02095-KJM-DB Document 58 Filed 01/30/15 Page 6 of 11
6

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

otherwise be entitled to assert with respect to the information or documents and their subject 

matter. 

4. The Court further orders that because expedited or truncated privilege review 

may be necessary for the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of this matter, and because 

Rule 502(d) does not preserve privileges other than the attorney-client privilege and workproduct protection, the Parties need not review each and every page of the materials produced in 

discovery for all applicable privileges, except where the circumstances make such review 

reasonable. Accordingly, the disclosure of privileged or protected information or documents in 

discovery conducted in this litigation will be deemed unintentional, inadvertent, and, where page 

by page review of produced materials would not be reasonable, compelled by order of this Court. 

Such disclosure will not constitute a waiver of the disclosing Party’s right to claim any privilege 

or protection that would have applied to the information or documents or their subject matter but 

for the disclosure, provided only that the Party disclaiming waiver employed procedures 

reasonably designed to screen out privileged materials. However, the Parties shall not argue, in 

this forum or any other, that any privileges were waived as a result of disclosures in this 

litigation irrespective of the procedures used screen out privileged materials.

5. If a Party determines that it has produced a document upon which it wishes to 

make a claim of privilege, the producing Party shall, within 14 days of making such 

determination and no later than 14 days before the close of discovery, give all counsel of record 

notice of the claim of privilege. The notice shall identify each such document and the date it was 

produced. If the producing Party claims that only a portion of a document is privileged, the 

producing Party shall provide, along with the notice of the claim of privilege, a new copy of the 

document with the allegedly privileged portions redacted. Any Party that complies with this 

paragraph will be deemed to have taken reasonable steps to rectify disclosures of privileged or 

protected information or materials.

6. If a Party identifies a document produced by another party in discovery that 

appears on its face to be subject to the producing Party’s claim of privilege, the Party identifying 

the potential claim of privilege shall make reasonable efforts to notify the Party holding the 

Case 2:13-cv-02095-KJM-DB Document 58 Filed 01/30/15 Page 7 of 11
7

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

potential claim of privilege. Such notification shall not waive the identifying Party’s ability to 

subsequently challenge any assertion of privilege with respect to the identified document. If the 

Party holding the potential claim of privilege wishes to assert a claim of privilege, it shall 

provide notice in accordance with paragraph 5 above within five business days of receiving 

notice from the identifying Party. This paragraph does not impose on any Party or their counsel 

any obligation to review or assess any other Party’s potential claims of privilege as to any 

document produced in discovery.

7. Upon receiving notice of a claim of privilege on a produced document, the 

receiving Party must, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(B), promptly sequester the 

specified information and any copies it has and may not use or disclose the information, except 

as provided by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(B), until the claim is resolved. Copies of privileged 

documents or information that have been stored on electronic media that is not reasonably 

accessible, such disaster recovery backup media, are adequately sequestered as long as they are 

not restored; if such data is restored, the receiving Party must take steps to re-sequester the 

restored information. If the receiving Party disclosed the information before being notified, it 

must take reasonable steps to prevent further use of such information until the claim is resolved. 

8. If a Party wishes to dispute a claim of privilege asserted under this Order, such 

Party shall, within 14 days, move the Court for an order compelling disclosure of the 

information. The Party shall follow the procedures described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(B). 

Pending resolution of the motion, the Parties shall not use the challenged information for any 

other purpose and shall not disclose it to any person other than those required by law to be served 

with a copy of the sealed motion.

9. The Parties may stipulate to extend the time periods specified in paragraphs 5, 6, 

and 8 above.

10. Nothing in this order overrides, increases, or modifies any attorney’s ethical 

responsibilities to refrain from examining or disclosing materials that the attorney knows or 

reasonably should know to be privileged and to inform the disclosing Party that such materials 

have been produced.

Case 2:13-cv-02095-KJM-DB Document 58 Filed 01/30/15 Page 8 of 11
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

11. The Party wishing to assert a claim of privilege retains the burden, upon challenge 

pursuant to paragraph 8, of establishing the applicability of the claimed privilege. This Order 

does not preclude a Party from voluntarily waiving any claims of privilege. The provisions of 

Rule 502(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence apply when a Party uses privileged information to 

support a claim or defense.

F. Costs of Document Production. Unless this Court orders otherwise for good cause 

shown, each Party shall bear the costs of producing its own documents. 

STIPULATED AND AGREED BY:

JOHN C. CRUDEN

Assistant Attorney General

Dated: January 28, 2015 /s John Thomas H. Do

ANDREW J. DOYLE (FL Bar No.84948)

JOHN THOMAS H. DO (CA Bar No. 285075)

Trial Attorneys

United States Department of Justice

Environment and Natural Resources Division

P.O. Box 7611

Washington, DC 20044

(202) 514-4427 (p) (Doyle)

(202) 514-2593 (p) (Do)

(202) 514-8865 (f)

andrew.doyle@usdoj.gov

john.do@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff

Dated: January 28, 2015 /s Anthony L. François

M. REED HOPPER (CA Bar No. 131291)

ANTHONY L. FRANÇOIS (CA Bar 184100)

Pacific Legal Foundation

930 G Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814

(916) 419-7111 (p)

(916) 419-7747 (f)

mrh@pacificlegal.org

alf@pacificlegal.org

Case 2:13-cv-02095-KJM-DB Document 58 Filed 01/30/15 Page 9 of 11
9

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

DAVID M. IVESTER (CA Bar No. 76863)

Briscoe Ivester & Bazel LLP

155 Sansome Street, Seventh Floor

San Francisco, CA 94104

(415) 402-2700 (p)

(415) 398-5630 (f)

divester@briscoelaw.net

GERALD E. BRUNN (CA Bar No. 107004)

Law Offices of Brunn & Flynn

928 12th Street, Suite 200

Modesto, CA 95354

(209) 521-2133 (p)

(209) 521-7584 (f)

gbrunn@brunn-flynn.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and CounterclaimDefendants

Case 2:13-cv-02095-KJM-DB Document 58 Filed 01/30/15 Page 10 of 11
10

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

ORDER

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 29, 2015

Ddad1\orders.civil

duarte2095.stip.prot.ord.DOC

Case 2:13-cv-02095-KJM-DB Document 58 Filed 01/30/15 Page 11 of 11