Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05202/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-05202-4/pdf.json

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

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

UBISOFT ENTERTAINMENT, S.A.,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

GUITAR APPRENTICE, INC., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: 3:14-cv-05202-JST

[PROPOSED] STIPULATION & ORDER 

RE: DISCOVERY OF 

ELECTRONICALLY STORED 

INFORMATION FOR PATENT 

LITIGATION 

JUDGE: Honorable Jon S. Tigar 

)

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 3:14-cv-05202-JST Document 49 Filed 06/17/15 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. 

a. Email production requests shall only be propounded for specific issues, 

rather than general discovery of a product or business. 

b. 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. 

c. 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. 

d. 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. 

e. Each requesting party shall limit its email production requests to a total 

of seven 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, 

Case 3:14-cv-05202-JST Document 49 Filed 06/17/15 Page 2 of 4
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

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 party shall bear all 

reasonable costs caused by such additional discovery. 

7. 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. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED, through Counsel of Record. 

Dated: 6/15/2015 /s/ Michelle Marriott 

 Counsel for Plaintiff

Dated:6/15/2015 /s/ Ryan Levy 

 Counsel for Defendant

Case 3:14-cv-05202-JST Document 49 Filed 06/17/15 Page 3 of 4
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

IT IS ORDERED that the forgoing Agreement is approved. 

Dated: 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT/MAGISTRATE JUDGE

June 17, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

 Judge Jon S. Tigar 

Case 3:14-cv-05202-JST Document 49 Filed 06/17/15 Page 4 of 4