Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06185/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-06185-9/pdf.json

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

---

1 JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: DISCOVERY OF 

ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION

CASE NO. 4:18-CV-06185-HSG

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

Michael Liu Su (Cal. Bar No. 300590) 

michael.liu.su@finnegan.com 

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, 

 GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP 

3300 Hillview Avenue 

Palo Alto, CA 94304 

Telephone: (650) 849-6600 

Facsimile: (650) 849-6666 

Lionel M. Lavenue (pro hac vice) 

lionel.lavenue@finnegan.com 

Bradford C. Schulz (pro hac vice) 

bradford.schulz@finnegan.com 

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, 

 GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP 

Two Freedom Square 

11955 Freedom Drive 

Reston, VA 20190 

Telephone: (571) 203-2700 

Facsimile: (202) 408-4400 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

ZTE (USA) Inc. 

Sarah G. Hartman (Cal. Bar No. 281751) 

shartman@brownrudnick.com 

Alfred R. Fabricant (pro hac vice) 

afabricant@brownrudnick.com 

Peter Lambrianakos (pro hac vice) 

plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com 

Vincent J. Rubino, III (pro hac vice) 

vrubino@brownrudnick.com 

Brown Rudnick LLP 

7 Times Square 

New York, NY 10036 

Telephone: (212) 209-4800 

Facsimile: (212) 209-4801 

Arjun Sivakumar (Cal. Bar No. 297787) 

asivakumar@brownrudnick.com 

Brown Rudnick LLP 

2211 Michelson Drive, Seventh Floor 

Irvine, California 92612 

Telephone: (949) 752-7100 

Facsimile: (949) 252-1514 

Attorneys for Defendant AGIS SOFTWARE 

DEVELOPMENT LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ZTE (USA) INC., 

 Plaintiff(s), 

 vs. 

AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC, 

 Defendant(s). 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case Number: 4:18-cv-06185-HSG 

(Former Case No. 2:17-cv-00517-JRG) (E.D. 

Tex.) 

JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: 

DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY 

STORED INFORMATION FOR PATENT 

LITIGATION 

 

Case 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 70 Filed 05/14/19 Page 1 of 5
 2 JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: DISCOVERY OF 

ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION

CASE NO. 4:18-CV-06185-HSG

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

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12 and the Court’s Scheduling Order (Dkt. 63), the parties 

hereby agree to the terms of the following proposed order regarding discovery of electronically 

stored information and respectfully request that the Court enter the proposed order. 

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. 

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 

Case 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 70 Filed 05/14/19 Page 2 of 5
 3 JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: DISCOVERY OF 

ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION

CASE NO. 4:18-CV-06185-HSG

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

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 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. 

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 

(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. 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 

Case 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 70 Filed 05/14/19 Page 3 of 5
 4 JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: DISCOVERY OF 

ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION

CASE NO. 4:18-CV-06185-HSG

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

party shall bear all reasonable costs caused by such additional discovery. 

12. 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. 

Dated: May 13, 2019 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Michael Liu Su 

Michael Liu Su (Cal. Bar No. 300590) 

michael.liu.su@finnegan.com 

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, 

 GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP 

3300 Hillview Avenue 

Palo Alto, CA 94304 

Telephone: (650) 849-6600 

Facsimile: (650) 849-6666 

Lionel M. Lavenue (pro hac vice) 

lionel.lavenue@finnegan.com 

Bradford C. Schulz (pro hac vice) 

bradford.schulz@finnegan.com 

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, 

 GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP 

Two Freedom Square 

11955 Freedom Drive 

Reston, VA 20190 

Telephone: (571) 203-2700 

Facsimile: (202) 408-4400 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

ZTE (USA) Inc. 

Dated: May 13, 2019 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Sarah G. Hartman_______ 

Sarah G. Hartman (Cal. Bar No. 

281751) 

shartman@brownrudnick.com 

Alfred R. Fabricant (pro hac vice) 

afabricant@brownrudnick.com 

Peter Lambrianakos (pro hac vice) 

plambrianakos@brownrudnick.com 

Case 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 70 Filed 05/14/19 Page 4 of 5
 5 JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: DISCOVERY OF 

ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION

CASE NO. 4:18-CV-06185-HSG

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

Vincent J. Rubino, III (pro hac vice) 

vrubino@brownrudnick.com 

Brown Rudnick LLP 

7 Times Square 

New York, NY 10036 

Telephone: (212) 209-4800 

Facsimile: (212) 209-4801 

Arjun Sivakumar (Cal. Bar No. 

297787) 

asivakumar@brownrudnick.com 

Brown Rudnick LLP 

2211 Michelson Drive, Seventh Floor 

Irvine, California 92612 

Telephone: (949) 752-7100 

Facsimile: (949) 252-1514 

Attorneys for Defendant 

AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT 

LLC

ATTESTATION 

I, Michael Liu Su, hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been 

obtained from each of the other Signatories indicated by a confirmed signature (/s/) within this efiled document. 

/s/ Michael Liu Su 

Michael Liu Su 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED, 

Dated: May 14, 2019 _______________________________________ 

The Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. 

U.S. District Court Judge 

Northern District of California

Case 4:18-cv-06185-HSG Document 70 Filed 05/14/19 Page 5 of 5