Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05488/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05488-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 Patent Infringement

---

28 

DLA PIPER US LtP LW ANI'.I.:l@P 

MARK D. FOWLER (Bar No. 12423 5) 

mark. fowl er@dlapiver.com 

DAVID ALBERT1 (Bar. No. 220625) 

david.alberti@,dlavi~er.com 

CHRISTINE K. CORBETT (Bar No. 2091 28) 

christine.corbett@dlapiver.cbm 

YAKOV M. ZOLOTOEV (Bar No. 224260) 

yakov.zolotorev~dlaviper.cam 

CARRIE L. WILLIAMSON (Bar No. 230873) 

DLA PIPER US LLP 

2000 University Avenue 

East Palo Alto, CA 94303-221 5 

Tel: 650.833.2000 

Fax: 650.833.2001 

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant 

Sun Microsystems, Inc. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DMSION 

SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC., I CASE NO. 3107-CV-05488 EDL I 

NETWORK APPLIANCE, INC., 

PlaintiWCounterdefmdant, 

v. 

ELECTRONIC AND OTHER ( INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

REGARDING THE PRODUCTION OF 

To facilitate the cost-effective exchange of responsive, non-privileged documents, 

Defendant/Counterplaintiff. 

including electronically stored information ("ESI"), in response to requests for production of I 

DOCUMENT REQUESTS 

documents pursuant to Federal Rule of CiviI Procedure 34, the parties stipuIate as follows. 

The process of collecting and producing ESI and other documents in response to Rule 34 

document requests shall include the following: 

(1) on March 20,2008, each side shall identify in writing to the other side fifteen of its 

-1- 

~~\7227684.1 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE PRODUCTlON OF INFORMATION IN RESPONSE 

347155-29 TO DOCUMENT REQUESTS - CASE NO. 3107-CV-05488 EDL I 

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 23 Filed 03/05/08 Page 1 of 6
DLA PIPER US LLP 

Ll>S ANr;Sl.U. 

own employees and consultants (plus the named inventors on the asserted patents currently 

employed by that side) who that side believes, in good faith, are most likely to possess the most 

relevant documents (ESI or paper) pertaining to the claims and defenses in the action; 

(2) in responding to any Rule 34 document request, and subject to any properly 

asserted objection thereto, each side shall collect and produce any responsive, non-privileged ESI 

and other documents possessed by the custodians on its list; 

(3) after the initial exchange of document custodian lists, each side may identify in 

writing to the other side the names of additional employees and consultants of the other side from 

whom responsive, non-privileged ESI and other documents in their possession also must be 

coIlected and produced; 

(4) each side may identify up to I5 such additional document custodians of the other 

side; 

(5) such 15 additional custodians of the other side may be identified at one time, or 

individually or in groups at different times, but no such custodian shall be identified later than 45 

days before the fact discovery cut-off date, absent good cause; 

(6) upon being presented with the name of such an additional custodian, the receiving 

party may object within 7 days if, following a reasonable investigation, it believes in good faith 

that the identification is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, that the burden 

of colIecting information from the person so identified outweighs the value of the information 

expected to be discovered, that the identification is made for an impermissible purpose, or any 

other grounds under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Following an objection, the parties 

shaI1 meet and confer within the following 7 days in an effort to resolve the dispute. If the 

dispute is not resolved within the 7 day period, the party seeking documents from the additional 

custodians may file a motion with the court. If the receiving party does not object to the 

-2- 

~~~227684. I STIPULATION AND ORDER RE PRODUCTION OF INFORMATION IN RESPONSE 

347 155-29 TO DOCUMENT REQUESTS - CASE NO. 3~07-CV-05488 EDL 

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 23 Filed 03/05/08 Page 2 of 6
DLA PIPER US LLP LO5 ANCiELR 

identification, it shall produce all non-privileged documents in the possession of that custodian 

that are responsive to each Rule 34 document request previously served by the other side no later 

than the later of (a) the date documents are due to be produced pursuant to a then- pending 

document request, or @) 30 days after the identification of the additional custodian; 

(7) in responding to a Rule 34 document request, a party shall not be required to 

preserve, search for, collect or produce documents in the individual possession of employees and 

consultants other than the custodians identified pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (3) above; 

(8) as used ih this stipulation, ESI and documents "possessed" by or in the 

"possession" of an individual custodian means information held or maintained by that person, or 

by any secretary, administrative assistant or other comparable employee working directly for that 

person, (a) in paper files, binders, calendars, stacks of paper, loose papers or in any other written 

materials located in that person's own office(s), work space(s) or home(s), (b) in electronic files 

in desktop or notebook computers or portable disk drives, memory sticks, etc. used by that person 

for work purposes, and (c) in personalized electronic accounts for and accessible by that person 

on a party's corporate network or server (e.g., m ernail account maintained by or for that person 

or a folder on a network drive that is dedicated for that person's use); 

(9) a privileged document log listing privileged documents in the possession of 

persons identified an the parties' document custodian lists that are responsive to a Rule 34 

document request and have been withheld from a document production. The parties will produce 

an initial privilege log on April 30,2008 and will supplement this privilege log on the last day of 

each month through the end of document production. 

(10) any supplemental privileged docwnent log required by the other side's 

identification of an additional document custodian shall be served no later than 60 days after the 

identification of the additional custodian. 

-3- 

8~\7227684,1 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE PRODUCTlON OF INFORMATlON IN RESPONSE 

347 155-29 TO DOCUMENT REQUESTS - CASE NO. 3:07-CV-05488 EDL 

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 23 Filed 03/05/08 Page 3 of 6
DLA PIPER US LLP LCIS ANI:sI.I 

Notwithstanding paragraphs (I) through (8) above: 

(a) the sources of the ESI and other documents that are specificaIly required to be 

produced under the Patent Local Rules are not limited by this stipulation (i.e., it is not grounds to 

withhold from production information required to be produced under the Patent Local Rules 

because the information is not in the possession of one of the listed document custodians); 

(b) nothing in this stipulation reIieves the parties of their obIigation to search for, 

collect and produce non-privileged, responsive ESI and other documents that are maintained by 

the parties on corporate, department or group networks or servers that are accessed by multiple 

employees, or in central, department or group document repositories (e.g., source code 

management systems, libraries of specifications or manuals, customer support websites etc.); 

(c) subject to a detailed showing of need by the requesting party, neither party is 

required to search or produce information stored on back-up tapes; 

(d) neither party is required to preserve, search for, collect or produce 

(i) voicemail, 

(ii) information stored on hand-held devices (such as a cell phone, Blackberry, 

etc. - hand-held devices do not include tablet PCs, notebook computers or laptop computers), or 

(iii) instant messages; 

(e) neither party is required to preserve or search e-mail servers for responsive 

documents other than the e-mail accounts of the cunently employed named inventors and the 

document custodians identified pursuant to paragraphs (I) and (3) above; 

(f) this stipulation does not limit discovery pertaining to expert witnesses; and 

(g) this stipulation does not limit who may be noticed for deposition. 

Each party understands and acknowledges there may be other employees and consultants 

of the other party, in addition to the named inventors and the persons on the document custodian 

-4- 

EM7227684.1 STlPULATION AND ORDER RE PRODUCTION OF lNFORMATION IN RESPONSE 

347 155-29 TO DOCUMENT REQUESTS -CASE NO. 3 :07-CV-05488 EDL 

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 23 Filed 03/05/08 Page 4 of 6
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

I0 

11 

12 

13 

I4 

15 

16 

I7 

18 

19 

20 

2 1 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

ULA PIPER US LLP LOG ANGEl FS 

1ists;who individually may possess relevant ESI or other documents. However, as described 

above, in order to conduct discovery efficiently, including reducing the burden and cost of 

responding to discovery, the parties agree to limit the scope of discovery as specified above. 

In producing documents in response to either the Patent Local Rules or a Rule 34 

document request, the parties shall produce electronic documents in single page TIFF format with 

accompanying .dat files with extracted text from the documents and image load files. The fixed 

images wiIl bear production numbers and identify the producing side. A producing party may, at 

its election, produce source code and spreadsheets in native format rather than in TIFF format. A 

requesting party may make a request for native versions of specific documents, but no party may 

seek to compel production of native format files of electronic documents on a wholesale basis. If, 

at any time, a producing party deems a requesting party's demand for native format documents to 

be excessive, the parties will meet and confer regarding the scope of the request. 

As part of their existing document preservation obligations, the parties shall take 

reasonable steps to preserve all ESI that is within the personal possession of document custodians 

identified pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 3, or that is stored in central storage systems referred to in 

paragraph 1 O(b), and that is reasonably expected to contain relevant data. In the case of 

individuals not identified under paragraph 1, the existing obligation to preserve potentiallyrelevant ESI dissolves on May 1,2008 unless such individuals are identified as document 

custodians pursuant to paragraph 3 before that date. For all individuals identified after May 1, 

2008, the duty to preserve potentially-relevant ESI shall begin upon their identification pursuant 

to paragraph 3. These provisions notwithstanding, neither party nor its employees shall 

intentionally destroy documents or other information known to be relevant to the case with the 

intention of depriving the opposing party of the documents or information. However: (i) the 

parties may continue to implement their policies and practices predating the filing of this action 

-5- 

EM\7227684. I STIPULATION AND ORDER RE PRODUCTION OF INFORMATION n\l RESPONSE 

3471 55-29 TO DOCUMENT REQUESTS -CASE NO. 3:07-CV-05488 EDL 

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 23 Filed 03/05/08 Page 5 of 6
28 

DLA PIPER US LLP LO5 ANGELES 

pertaining to the preservation and rotation of back-up tapes; and (ii) the parties shall not have any 

obligation to preserve Future Records. Future Records are records created after January 1,2008, 

that are drafts, interim versions, database updates or modifications (such as modifications 

resulting from the routine entry or modification of records) or other ephemera that wouId not be 

preserved in the ordinary course of business. A11 provisions of this Order are subject to 

modification for good cause shown. 

Dated: March 3,2008 

By /s/ ~hristine K. Corbett 

MARK FOWLER 

CHRISTINE K. CORBETT 

CARRIE L. WILLIAMSON 

DLA PIPER US LLP 

Attorneys for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant 

SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. 

Dated: March 3,2008 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ,2008 

By is/ Jeffrey G. Hornrig 

EDWARD R. REINES 

JEFFREY G. HOMRIG 

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES 

Attorneys for DefendantKounterplaintiff 

NETWORK APPLIANCE, INC. 

Honorable Elizabeth D. La~orte 

U.S. Magistrate Judge 

-6- 

~~\nz7684.1 STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: PRODUCTION OF INFORMATION IN RESPONSE 

3471 55-29 TO DOCUMENT REQUESTS -CASE NO. 3307-CV-05488 EDL 

March 4

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte

Case 3:07-cv-05488-EDL Document 23 Filed 03/05/08 Page 6 of 6