Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01258/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01258-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lance Aytman
Plaintiff
Keith Hooker
Plaintiff
Alex Horn
Plaintiff
Kraft Heinz Foods Company LLC
Defendant

Document Text:

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

Case No. 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF ESI

1

FELICIA GILBERT (#276348) MICHELE HAYDEL GEHRKE (#215647)

MELISSA TRIBBLE (#339098) Reed Smith LLP 

Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 1800

111 Sutter St., Suite 975 San Francisco, CA 94105

San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 543-8700

Telephone: (415) 795-2020 Email: mgehrke@reedsmith.com

Email: fgilbert@sanfordheisler.com

Email: mtribble@sanfordheisler.com

SABA BIREDA (pro hac vice) JILL S. VOROBIEV (pro hac vice)

JAMES HANNAWAY (pro hac vice) Reed Smith LLP

Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP 10 South Wacker Drive 

700 Pennsylvania Avenue S.E., Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60606

Washington, DC 20003 Telephone: (312) 207-1000 

Telephone: (202) 499-5200 Email: jvorobiev@reedsmith.com

Email: sbireda@sanfordheisler.com

Email: jhannaway@sanfordheisler.com

EDWARD CHAPIN (#53287) AMANDA BROWN (pro hac vice)

CARA VAN DORN (#321669) Reed Smith LLP 

Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP 2850 N. Harwood Street, Suite 1500

2550 Fifth Ave., 11th Floor Dallas, TX 75201

San Diego, CA 92103 Telephone: (469) 680-4232

Telephone: (619) 577-4253 Email: aebrown@reedsmith.com

Email: echapin@sanfordheisler.com

Email: cvandorn@sanfordheisler.com Attorneys for Defendant

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEX HORN, LANCE AYTMAN, AND 

KEITH HOOKER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF 

ELECTRONICALLY STORED 

INFORMATION (“ESI”)

District Judge: Jennifer L. Thurston

Magistrate Judge: Barbara A. McAuliffe

Complaint Filed: August 19, 2021

Trial Date: Not Set

Case 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM Document 50 Filed 08/09/22 Page 1 of 22
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

Case No. 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF ESI

2

Plaintiffs Alex Horn, Lance Aytman, and Keith Hooker (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Kraft 

Heinz Foods Company LLC (“Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their 

undersigned counsel, STIPULATE AND AGREE to the following Order for the production of 

Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”) in the above-captioned matter (hereinafter, “this Order”).

I. GENERAL

1. This Order shall govern the discovery of Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”) 

in this case as a supplement to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”), the Local 

Rules of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, this Court’s Standing 

Order in Civil Cases, and any other applicable orders and rules.

2. The Parties are aware of the importance the Court places on cooperation and commit 

to cooperate in good faith throughout the action.

3. The Parties shall take reasonable steps to comply with the protocol set forth herein. 

The Parties agree to promptly alert all other Parties concerning any technical problems associated 

with complying with this Order. To the extent compliance with this Order imposes an undue 

burden, the Parties shall promptly confer in an effort to resolve the issue.

4. Nothing in this Order shall supersede the provisions of any applicable Protective 

Order in this case, including but not limited to the May 19, 2022 Protective Order entered by the 

Court (Dkt. Nos. 40-41) (hereinafter, “the Protective Order”).

5. This Order applies to any third-party discovery, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 45, if 

agreed to by the subpoena recipient. Nothing contained herein modifies Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 and, 

specifically, the provision of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B) regarding the effect of a written objection 

to inspection or copying of any or all of the designated materials or premises. 

6. In the event of remand or transfer to other courts, this Order will remain in effect in 

all respects, until adopted by the remand or transferee court or replaced by a successor order. 

7. Nothing in this Order shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of any objections a 

producing Party may have with respect to any discovery request nor shall it impose obligations on 

the Parties in excess of the requirements of the Fed. R. Civ. P 26, unless by mutual agreement of 

the Parties.

Case 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM Document 50 Filed 08/09/22 Page 2 of 22
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

Case No. 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF ESI

3

8. Subject to the Parties’ objections and responses to requests for production of

Documents, all non-privileged Documents that are identified as proportional, relevant, and 

responsive to discovery requests shall be produced in the manner provided herein and consistent 

with the Protective Order.

9. Consistent with their obligations under the applicable Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, the Court’s Standing Orders, and the Local Rules for the Eastern District of California,

the Parties will attempt to resolve disputes regarding the issues set forth herein prior to filing a 

motion with the Court, or otherwise seeking relief. If the Parties are unable to resolve the dispute 

after a good faith effort, the Parties may seek Court intervention in accordance with the Court’s 

procedures.

II. DEFINITIONS

1. “Document” is defined to be synonymous in meaning and equal in scope to the

usage of this term in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 34. The term “Document” shall include HardCopy Documents, Electronic Documents, and ESI as defined herein.

2. “Electronic Document or Data” mean a Document or Data existing in electronic

form at the time of collection, including but not limited to: email or other means of electronic

communications, word processing files (e.g., Microsoft Word), computer presentations (e.g.,

PowerPoint slides), spreadsheets (e.g., Excel), and image files (e.g., PDF and .JPG).

3. “Electronically Stored Information” or “ESI” as used herein has the same

meaning as in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 34.

4. “Hard-Copy Document” means a Document existing in paper form at the time of

collection.

5. “Native Format” means and refers to the format of ESI in which it was created, 

maintained, generated, and/or used by the producing Party in the usual course of the Party’s 

business and the Party’s regularly conducted activities.

6. “Metadata” means: (i) information embedded in or associated with a native file

that is not ordinarily viewable or printable from the application that generated, edited, or modified

such native file which describes the characteristics, origins, usage, and/or validity of the

Case 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM Document 50 Filed 08/09/22 Page 3 of 22
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

Case No. 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF ESI

4

electronic file; and/or, (ii) information generated automatically by the operation of a computer or

other information technology system when a native file is created, modified, transmitted,

deleted, or otherwise manipulated by a user of such system. 

7. “Media” means an object or device, real or virtual, including but not limited to a

disc, tape, computer, or other device on which data is or was stored.

8. “Optical Character Recognition” or “OCR” means the optical character

recognition file which is created by software used in conjunction with a scanner that is capable of

reading text-based Documents and making such Documents searchable using appropriate

software.

9. “Hash Value” is a unique numerical identifier that can be assigned to a file, a

group of files, or a portion of a file, based on a standard mathematical algorithm applied to the

characteristics of the data set. The most commonly used algorithms are known as MD5 and

SHA-1.

10. “Confidentiality Designation” means the legend affixed to Documents for

confidential discovery information as defined by, and subject to, the terms of the Protective 

Order.

11. “Searchable Text” means the native text extracted from an Electronic Document

and any Optical Character Recognition text (“OCR text”) generated from a Hard-Copy

Document or electronic image.

12. “Load File” means an electronic file provided with a production set of document

images that facilitate the loading of such information into a receiving Party’s document review

platform, and the correlation of such data in the platform.

13. “Unitization” means a set of paper-scanned images or electronically processed

files and indicates where individual pages or files belong together as Documents, including

attachments, and where each Document begins and ends.

III. DATA SOURCES AND CULLING CRITERIA

1. Custodians. The Parties agree to meet and confer regarding the identity of

custodians whose ESI will be preserved, reviewed, and produced pursuant to this Protocol, along 

Case 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM Document 50 Filed 08/09/22 Page 4 of 22
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

Case No. 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF ESI

5

with the date filters for each proposed custodian (“custodian date filters”). The custodian list and 

date filters will be subject to the Producing Party’s ongoing good faith efforts to identify the 

custodians most likely to have information that is relevant or responsive to requests for production. 

The Parties have agreed on an initial set of twenty-two custodians that are identified on Exhibit B.

The Parties reserve the right to request a reasonable number of additional custodians whose 

relevance was discovered via documents or data produced or testimony given subsequent to the 

initial agreement on the list of custodians whose ESI will be searched. The Parties will meet and 

confer regarding the addition of any custodians as necessary and appropriate. Any disagreements 

between the Parties regarding the custodian list and/or custodian date filters that cannot be resolved 

through informal means may be submitted to the Court for resolution.

2. Custodian Data Sources. The Parties agree to meet and confer to identify the ESI 

sources that will be searched for each custodian identified pursuant to ¶ III.1 above. Such ESI 

sources will include email accounts (if available), as well as such other electronic sources as are 

reasonably likely to contain relevant, material, and non-duplicative information, as may be 

indicated through interviews of the identified custodians, subject to the proportionality factors set 

forth in Rule 26(b)(1). 

3. The parties agree to preserve and search the following sources for each custodian on 

the initial finalized list referenced in ¶ III(1), above, to the extent each custodian identifies the 

sources as potentially containing relevant information, subject to the proportionality factors set 

forth in Rule 26(b)(1):

a. The hard copy files of identified custodians;

b. The local drives, cloud-based storage, and personal file shares of identified 

custodians, including document storage on Microsoft Teams;

c. The active and archived (if available) email accounts of identified custodians,

including any locally available PST files only if there is a reasonable basis to believe 

that a locally available PST file is available and contains discoverable information 

that is not contained in the custodian’s cloud-based O365 mailbox; 

d. The active file server directories (i.e., shared drives) used by each identified 

Case 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM Document 50 Filed 08/09/22 Page 5 of 22
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

Case No. 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF ESI

6

custodian to store electronic records; 

e. Any Company-issued or Company-provided phones or other devices containing 

instant or text messages, including Microsoft Teams messages;

f. Home computers, phones, or other devices, if there is a reasonable basis to believe 

the custodian regularly used their home computer, phone, or other device to perform 

work for, or communicate with, the Company using non-Kraft-Heinz-owned 

systems or applications (as detailed in ¶ 6 of the Company’s Personal Electronic 

Device Usage Policy) and did not document or store the communications or work 

on an appropriate Kraft Heinz system or application of record. Review of content 

within Kraft-Heinz-owned systems or applications (as detailed in ¶ 6 of the 

Company’s Personal Electronic Device Usage Policy) need not take place on home 

computers, phones, or other devices if the same information is available on a Kraftowned device otherwise subject to (a) through (e) and (g) of this paragraph. Unless 

otherwise agreed to by the Parties, the understanding is that these devices will not 

be imaged but, rather, searched by the individual custodian, in consultation with 

counsel, in such cases; and 

g. The backup or archive systems of any of the above.

4. To the extent any of the identified custodians are in possession of hard copy files 

that are reasonably likely to contain relevant, material, and non-duplicative information, the 

Producing Party may have such materials scanned and included in its ESI review or may choose to 

manually review such materials instead. 

5. Non-Custodial Sources of Parties. Subject to the Parties’ objections and responses 

to Requests for Production of Documents, for any request where the responsive Documents or ESI 

are available from a non-custodial source, the Parties will undertake reasonable efforts to identify 

non-custodial sources that may contain responsive ESI. These sources may include departmental 

paper files, shared drives, databases, employee portals, shared computers, collaborative workstation 

terminals, and other electronic collaborative workspaces or other document management and 

human resources systems. The Parties agree to meet and confer regarding the identification, 

Case 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM Document 50 Filed 08/09/22 Page 6 of 22
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

Case No. 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF ESI

7

collection, and production format for non-custodial sources.

6. Timeframe. The Parties agree that, subject to the Parties’ objections and responses 

to Requests for Production of Documents or other discovery objections, the preservation 

obligations of the Parties set forth in this Order apply to Documents and ESI generated, received, 

or created on or after January 1, 2012. The Parties also agree that, subject to the Parties’ objections 

and responses to Requests for Production of Documents or other discovery objections, the search 

and production obligations of the Parties set forth in this Order may apply to Documents and ESI 

generated, received, or created on or after January 1, 2012, except as otherwise agreed among the 

Parties or upon further order of the Court for good cause shown. The Parties agree to meet and 

confer in good faith regarding the timeframe applicable to searches and productions which may 

include running the report described in Section III.8 to include ESI with timeframes agreed to by 

the Parties. Nothing in this paragraph limits a Party’s ability to object to the timeframe of a 

particular discovery request or to challenge the timeframe limitations set forth in a Party’s 

objections and responses to Requests for Production of Documents or limits either Party’s ability 

to seek court intervention for a dispute over the proper timeframe for a particular discovery request.

7. Search Queries and Methodologies. The Parties agree that they will meet and 

confer regarding the formulation of appropriate search queries and methods to be used to cull 

potentially responsive or relevant ESI. The Parties will continue to meet and confer regarding any 

search process issues as necessary and appropriate. Without waiving their right to conduct 

appropriately targeted searches of Hard-Copy Documents, the Parties agree that search queries will 

not be used to cull collected Hard-Copy Documents prior to review.

8. If either Party wishes to use Boolean keyword searches to cull the universe of 

Electronic Documents and/or ESI to be reviewed, the Producing Party shall run the proposed search 

terms on an agreed upon set of custodians’ O365 mailboxes (including active and, subject to the 

Producing Party’s objections based on relevance and proportionality, offline mailboxes) which, at 

minimum, will include witnesses identified in Defendant’s December 15, 2021 Initial Disclosures

(see Exhibit B) and, upon agreement of the Parties, run a report showing (i) the number of 

documents in the document collection against which the search was conducted; (ii) the “hit count” 

Case 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM Document 50 Filed 08/09/22 Page 7 of 22
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

Case No. 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF ESI

8

of the raw number of documents identified per search term; and (iii) the total number of unique 

documents with hits across all search terms and documents within families containing such unique 

documents (e.g. the review universe if all terms were to be accepted and reviewed). As set forth in 

¶ III.9 below, this is not intended to obviate the need for production of known, non-privileged 

responsive documents that do not contain any of the proposed search terms, subject to the Producing 

Party’s objections. After running the aforementioned report, the Producing Party will share the 

report with the Receiving Party and the Parties agree to meet and confer to tailor the use of search 

strings so as to effectively identify potentially responsive material.

9. Email Threading. The Parties agree that they may use email threading to narrow 

the universe of documents for review. Where the most inclusive email—i.e., the latest email in a 

chain—is responsive and non-privileged, the Parties may elect to produce only the most inclusive 

email. However, where the most inclusive email contains only privileged or non-responsive 

information, the Parties may also elect to produce the latest email in the chain that contains all of 

the responsive, non-privileged information from the chain. This Order does not change the Parties’ 

obligation to produce responsive, non-privileged “branches” of an email chain that (1) are not 

included in the most inclusive email or (2) contain at least one attachment that is different than the 

attachment(s) to the most inclusive email. This Order also does not change the Parties’ obligation 

to produce a reasonable number of threaded emails separately, upon request.

10. Technology Assisted Review (“TAR”). The Producing Party may use technology 

assisted review, machine learning, or analytics tools to cull the document universe. Prior to using 

TAR, the Producing Party will confer with the Receiving Party in good faith regarding the use of 

TAR in an attempt to establish a mutually agreed upon workflow, but such conferral will not 

unreasonably impede the Producing Party’s use of TAR.

11. Production of Known Responsive Documents. Nothing in this Order relieves a 

Party, subject to its right to object under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, to produce known responsive documents 

(e.g., Plaintiffs’ personnel files) or, if privileged, identified on a privilege log consistent with ¶ V.1 

below, regardless of whether they contain search terms or have been classified as responsive via 

predictive coding or TAR.

Case 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM Document 50 Filed 08/09/22 Page 8 of 22
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

Case No. 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF ESI

9

12. Proprietary Software. To the extent that native files are produced that require 

proprietary software for access and review, the Parties agree to meet and confer regarding the issue 

and the Producing Party shall make reasonable efforts to facilitate the Receiving Party’s review of 

the files or may make such files available for review in an alternative format.

13. Password Protected Files. The Parties agree to utilize commercially reasonable

efforts to open password-protected or encrypted files and to meet and confer regarding such 

efforts.

14. System Files. The Parties may exclude system-generated files and folders that are 

not likely to contain user-created files from their review (e.g., by DeNISTing). 

15. De-Duplication Across Custodians. The Producing Party is only required to

produce a single copy of a responsive Document, and the Producing Party shall make

reasonable efforts to de-duplicate responsive Electronic Documents and ESI (based on MD5 or

SHA-1 Hash Values at the document level) across custodians. The fields upon which the Hash 

Value of emails are calculated shall be disclosed by the Producing Party. The Producing Party will 

provide a Duplicate Custodian field in the production Load File sufficient for the Receiving Party 

to identify each custodian of a particular document that was eliminated through de-duplication as 

well as the file path in which the document was kept in the ordinary course in the duplicate 

custodian’s files. If all recipient custodians are documented for removed documents in the 

Duplicate Custodian field, the Producing Party need only produce a single copy of the particular 

document; however, the Receiving Party may request a reasonable number of duplicate copies 

identifying particular custodians. For emails with attachments, the Hash Value shall be generated 

based on the parent-child document grouping, and only email messages in which the parent

document and all attachments are exactly the same will be considered duplicates. For Documents, 

prior drafts of documents will not be considered duplicates, although the Parties acknowledge that 

a draft of a document may be responsive while a final copy is not, and vice-versa. The Custodian,

FilePath, and EmailFolder will be included (for all available copies of a responsive Electronic 

Document) in the respective CUSTODIAN(S), FILEPATH(S), and EMAIL_FOLDER(S) fields

in the production Load File. In addition, if the email files were collected directly from the

Case 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM Document 50 Filed 08/09/22 Page 9 of 22
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

Case No. 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF ESI

10

Microsoft Exchange server, outlook.ost files may be excluded from processing as duplicative of 

outlook.pst files unless only the .ost file version is available.

IV. FORMAT OF PRODUCTION

1. Non-Redacted ESI Not Produced in Native Form. In the event there is a loss of 

functionality resulting from the processing of ESI, the Parties will meet and confer to discuss how 

to resolve the functionality concerns. ESI will be produced in single-page, black and white, 300

DPI, Group IV TIFF image file format together with Concordance Load Files, with searchable

extracted text of the Document (at the document level in a .TXT file) and the Metadata fields 

listed in Exhibit A, if applicable (except that the Parties agree that Metadata fields may be redacted 

on any basis permissible under the Fed. R. Civ. P., so long as redactions are identified as such and 

are consistent with Rule 26(b)(5)(A)(ii) of the Fed. R. Civ. P). If documents, such as email, are

produced, the relationship between related documents (e.g., email attachments) should be

preserved, to the extent it is available. All non-privileged Electronic Documents attached to an 

email should be produced contemporaneously and sequentially immediately after the parent email

to the extent feasible.

2. ESI to be Produced in Native Form. Non-redacted Excel files, .CSV files, 

other similar spreadsheet files, presentation (e.g., PowerPoint) files, and audio or video media files, 

or other similar file formats where an image file does not adequately represent the files as 

maintained in the ordinary course, shall be produced in their Native Format (to the extent available), 

including the formulae embedded in the spreadsheet and any Metadata contained in the file. The 

Parties agree to produce all documents with track changes visible. If a Receiving Party has reason 

to believe that a document contains tracked changes but those changes are not visible, a Party may 

request a reasonable number of Word documents to be produced in Native form with comments or 

tracked changes. The producing Party reserves the right to object if the requests become 

unreasonably onerous. Files produced in Native Format shall be named either with a sequential 

Bates number followed by the file extension or with a sequential Bates number followed by

the Confidentiality Designation, if applicable, and the file extension. A placeholder TIFF with

language “Document Produced in Native” or similar language shall be included for each native

Case 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM Document 50 Filed 08/09/22 Page 10 of 22
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

Case No. 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF ESI

11

file produced. To the extent native files, including electronic spreadsheets, are redacted, production

shall be made in TIFF format in accordance with the “Redacted Documents”section. To the extent 

other file formats present specific challenges, the Parties agree to cooperate in good faith to address 

the format in which those documents should be produced.

3. Redacted Documents. The Parties may redact Documents or ESI on the

following bases: attorney-client privilege; attorney work-product privilege; other applicable

privilege or immunity from disclosure; privacy concerns flowing from Personally Identifiable 

Information; trade secrets; information within affirmative action plans for protected categories 

other than race or disability; or non-relevant language in agreements with third-parties. Such 

redactions, as appropriate, shall be indicated consistent with the Protective Order. The Parties will 

include tags in the text of the document and in the Metadata indicating (1) Privileged Material 

Redacted, or (2) Personally Identifying Information/Demographic Redacted; (3) Trade Secret

/Third-Party; or (4) Non-Race Affirmative Action. If the Parties identify additional documents for 

redaction that do not qualify for any of the aforementioned categories/tags, the Parties agree to 

confer in good-faith on additional redaction categories/tags in an attempt to establish additional 

agreed-upon redaction categories/tags. For redacted Electronic Documents, the Parties agree to

produce as redacted single-page, black and white Group IV TIFF images with Metadata

contained in a separate file. If an Electronic Document is produced in redacted form, the Metadata 

fields listed in Exhibit A shall be produced for a redacted Electronic Document consistent with 

Rule 26(b)(5)(A)(ii) of the Fed. R. Civ. P. Neither Party waives the right to object to relevance 

redactions or based on any other factor set forth in this Paragraph.

4. Hard-Copy Documents. Hard-Copy Documents should be produced as singlepage, black and white Group IV TIFF images (300 DPI resolution) with coded data contained in

a separate file. The Producing Party shall also provide document-level OCR text files to

accompany the TIFF format production. The minimum fields for a scanned Hard-Copy Document

record will be BEGBATES, ENDBATES, BEGATTACH, ENDATTACH, CUSTODIAN

indicating the beginning and ending Bates numbers, attachments ranges of all documents, and

the custodian information. Hard-copy documents shall be OCR’d and the OCR text shall be 

Case 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM Document 50 Filed 08/09/22 Page 11 of 22
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

Case No. 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF ESI

12

provided as one .TXT file per document.

5. Document Unitization for Hard-Copy Documents. If a Hard-Copy Document

consists of more than one page, the Unitization of the Document and any attachments shall be

maintained as it existed in the original Document, so that each document will not be split, but

instead the pages thereof shall be sequenced and saved together, as they existed in the original. 

In the event a Document is produced that contains an affixed note, such as Post-Its, the Requesting 

Party may request for the Document to be re-produced without the affixed note and the Producing 

Party will make a good faith effort to re-produce the Document without the affixed note.

6. Databases, Structured and/or Application ESI. Subject to a Producing Party’s 

objection under Rule 26(b)(1) of the Fed. R. Civ. P, the Parties agree to produce responsive ESI

from any relevant database, structured and/or application ESI in a reasonably useable production

format. The Parties agree to meet and confer regarding the appropriate format(s) for production 

to enable review by the Parties. Nothing in this paragraph limits the Requesting Party from 

challenging a Producing Party’s Rule 26(b)(1) or other objection.

7. Social Media. Relevant ESI from social media websites (e.g., LinkedIn,

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram) may be produced by capturing responsive information through

“screenshots” or “screen captures” and converting the same into images along with

corresponding OCR or extracted text. In the event such screenshots or screen captures do not 

capture all relevant and responsive information, the Producing Party shall use reasonable efforts, 

and to the extent a party has control of the social media account, to perform a bulk exports of the 

accounts, such as by exporting a profile from LinkedIn or downloading a copy of an individual’s 

Facebook data and archive.

8. Bates Numbering. Each page of a produced image shall have a unique Bates

number electronically “burned” on the image at a location that does not unreasonably obliterate or

obscure any information from the source Document. Each TIFF image or native file assigned a

Bates number shall be assigned a Bates number that is unique and maintains consistent pagination

across the entire document production. Other than a Bates number, no other legend or stamp will 

be placed on the document image other than confidentiality legends (where applicable) or 

Case 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM Document 50 Filed 08/09/22 Page 12 of 22
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

Case No. 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF ESI

13

redactions. The Parties acknowledge that production of multiple documents at once may at times 

result in a Bates number that obliterates or obscures information, and the Parties agree to work 

together in good faith to address specific issues as they arise.

9. Confidentiality. Electronic data produced in discovery may be labeled with

Confidentiality Designations pursuant to the Protective Order. In the case of TIFF images,

confidentiality legends shall be “burned” on the image at a location that does not unreasonably

obliterate or obscure any information from the source document. The Parties acknowledge that 

production of multiple documents at once may at times result in a confidentiality branding that 

obliterates or obscures information, and the Parties agree to work together in good faith to address 

specific issues as they arise. For materials produced in Native Format, the producing party shall

supply fielded data identifying the confidential treatment of each document designated for

confidentiality or shall name the file with the Bates number followed by the Confidentiality

Designation and the file extension. A failure to make a designation through fielded data or a

naming of the file may be corrected by notifying the other side of the mistaken designations of 

confidential materials. Furthermore, nothing in this Order is intended to waive the protections set 

forth in the Protective Order.

10. Color Documents. Documents in color need not be produced in color as a matter 

of course except where production in color is apparently necessary to fully comprehend the 

document (e.g., where categories are distinguished by different colors of text or where the 

document is not otherwise readable). A Party may request that a reasonable number of specifically 

identified documents (e.g., social media posts) be produced in a color .PDF or .JPG format. 

Documents produced in color shall be produced as JPEG images, 300 dpi or higher and 24-bit color 

depth. Each color document image shall be named with the unique Bates number of the first page 

of the document followed by the extension “JPG.” An image identification file shall be provided 

containing a row of information for every image included in the production. The format of the file 

should be industry standard IRP format (LFP), Concordance Image format (OPT) or other delimited 

file format using common ASCII (American Standard Code for Information Interchange) 

characters for field identification that includes one row of information for each image with fields 

Case 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM Document 50 Filed 08/09/22 Page 13 of 22
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

Case No. 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF ESI

14

for image Bates number, relative path to the image, image filename, page number, and document 

start identifier to designate the first page of a document.

11. ESI Date and Time Processing: Each Party’s ESI should be processed using a 

consistent time zone—Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)—for all data associated with a 

particular custodian. The Producing Party shall share the time zone selected for processing of its 

data with the Receiving Party.

12. Production Media. Documents shall be produced through secure file transfer

protocols (e.g., FTP) or similar secure electronic transmission. The Bates number range(s) of

the materials shall be included on the production media label or, where it is not practicable to do

so, in an accompanying letter or email. If a Producing Party encrypts or “locks” a production, the 

Producing Party shall send, under separate correspondence, the password for decrypting the 

production. 

V. PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT CLAIMS

1. Privilege Log. The Parties recognize that Documents may be redacted or

withheld on the grounds of attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, or other applicable

privilege or immunity from disclosure (collectively, “privilege”). The Parties agree that if the 

following documents are privileged, they need not be included on a privilege log: (a) privileged 

materials created by or at the request of the Parties’ outside counsel as part of the investigation, 

prosecution, or defense of this case; (b) internal communications within the law firm representing 

Plaintiffs or those non-attorneys acting at the direction of counsel acting (or that previously acted) 

in its capacity as counsel for Plaintiff or within the legal team acting (or that previously acted) in 

its capacity representing the Defendant or those non-attorneys acting at the direction of counsel 

acting (or that previously acted) in its capacity as counsel for Defendant; and (c) privileged

communications between a Party, including their in-house counsel, and their outside counsel 

concerning the investigation, preparation, prosecution or defense of this case; and, (d) material that 

is protected by the attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product doctrines, or other applicable 

privilege based on an attorney-client or other privileged relationship with a non-party. The Parties 

believe that, where it is necessary to redact material in category “(d),” it will generally be obvious 

Case 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM Document 50 Filed 08/09/22 Page 14 of 22
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

Case No. 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF ESI

15

from the context of the redactions that material in this category has been redacted. While the Parties 

will make reasonable efforts to identify these redactions, they will not be required to log them on a 

privilege log. Where material in category “(d)” is withheld from production entirely (e.g., where 

such material was attached to a responsive, non-privileged email), the Parties agree that a slip-sheet 

bearing the label “DOCUMENT WITHHELD DUE TO NON-PARTY PRIVILEGE OR WORK 

PRODUCT” will be produced in the document’s place, and no Metadata for that document will be 

produced.

2. The Parties further agree that the use of a categorical privilege log may be

appropriate in this case. Unless the Parties mutually agree otherwise, within 90 days after the 

conclusion of each document production, or 45 days after the entry of this Order, whichever is later, 

the Producing Party will produce a privilege log in a Microsoft Excel workbook, listing the

documents withheld from production, including, for each document, the basis for the claim of 

privilege, the Bates number, date, document type, description, author, recipients/senders. 

Inadvertent failure to log privileged documents or metadata will not result in the waiver of privilege, 

provided that upon discovering the inadvertent omission, the Producing Party sends to the 

Requesting Party an addendum to the appropriate privilege log providing the required privilege log 

entries for the document(s). The Parties agree that the privilege log for their last production will be 

produced no later than 14 days before the close of fact discovery in this matter.

3. Clawback Protection. The productions of hard-copy documents and ESI are 

subject to the Parties’ rights under the Protective Order, the rules and practices of this Court, Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5), and Federal Rule of Evidence 502, to request the return of inadvertently 

produced discovery. The Parties agree Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502(d), the production of a 

privileged or work-product-protected document, whether inadvertent or otherwise, is not a waiver 

of privilege or protection from discovery in this case or in any other federal or state proceeding. 

For example, the mere production of privileged or work-product-protected documents in this case 

as part of a mass production is not itself a waiver in this case or in any other federal or state 

proceeding. The Parties agree that, if necessary, they will confer regarding whether a “quick peek” 

process pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5) is appropriate for certain productions, but that otherwise 

Case 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM Document 50 Filed 08/09/22 Page 15 of 22
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

Case No. 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF ESI

16

a “quick peek” is not anticipated.

VI. MISCELLANEOUS

1. Objections Preserved. Nothing in this Order shall be interpreted to require 

disclosure of irrelevant information, information that the Court has ruled is not proportional to the 

needs of the case, or relevant information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product 

doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or immunity, including any basis set forth in Rule 

26(b)(1) of the Fed. R. Civ. P. The Parties do not waive any objections as to the production, 

discoverability, admissibility, or confidentiality of hard-copy documents and ESI.

2. Costs. This Order does not prohibit any Party from seeking costs or cost-sharing 

measures in the event that a particular discovery request is overly broad or unduly burdensome, or

as otherwise allowed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

3. Protective Order. All Documents containing Confidential Information produced

by the Parties will be subject to the terms of the Protective Order, including but not limited to the 

terms regarding secure storage of Protected Material.

4. Modification. This Order may be modified by a Stipulation of the Parties with 

approval of this Court or by the Court for good cause shown.

Dated: August 5, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Felicia Gilbert

FELICIA GILBERT (#276348)

MELISSA TRIBBLE (#339098)

Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP 

111 Sutter St., Suite 975

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: (415) 795-2020

Email: fgilbert@sanfordheisler.com

Email: mtribble@sanfordheisler.com

SABA BIREDA (pro hac vice)

JAMES HANNAWAY (pro hac vice)

Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP

700 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E. 20003

Telephone: (202) 499-5200

Email: sbireda@sanfordheisler.com

Case 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM Document 50 Filed 08/09/22 Page 16 of 22
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

Case No. 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF ESI

17

Email: jhannaway@sanfordheisler.com

EDWARD CHAPIN (#53287)

CARA VAN DORN (#321669)

Sanford Heisler Sharp, LLP

2550 Fifth Ave., 11th Floor

San Diego, CA 92103

Telephone: (619) 577-4253

Email: echapin@sanfordheisler.com

Email: cvandorn@sanfordheisler.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

ALEX HORN, LANCE ATYMAN, and 

KEITH HOOKER

/s/ Michele Haydel Gehrke

MICHELE HAYDEL GEHRKE (#215647)

Reed Smith LLP

101 Second Street, Suite 1800

San Francisco, CA 94105

Telephone: (415) 543-8700

Email: mgehrke@reedsmith.com

JILL S. VOROBIEV (pro hac vice)

Reed Smith LLP

10 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60606

Telephone: (312) 207-1000

Email: jvorobiev@reedsmith.com

AMANDA E. BROWN (pro hac vice)

Reed Smith LLP

2850 N. Harwood Street, Suite 1500

Dallas, Texas

Telephone: (469) 680-4232

Email: aebrown@reedsmith.com

Attorneys for Defendant 

KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY LLC

Case 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM Document 50 Filed 08/09/22 Page 17 of 22
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

Case No. 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF ESI

18

Case 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM Document 50 Filed 08/09/22 Page 18 of 22
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

Case No. 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF ESI

19

EXHIBIT A

Field Definition Doc

SOURCE Name of party producing the document All

CUSTODIAN(S)

Names of person or other data source (non-human)

from where documents/files are produced; Where

redundant names occur, individuals should be

distinguished by an initial which is kept constant

throughout productions (e.g., Smith, John A. and

Smith, John B.)

All

BEGBATES Beginning Bates Number (production number) All

ENDBATES End Bates Number (production number) All

PGCOUNT Number of pages in the document All

FILESIZE File Size All

APPLICAT

Commonly associated application for the specified

file type All

FILEPATH(S) Original file/path of the locations where the item

resided at the time of preservation; This should

include location, file name, and file source extension

All

NATIVEFILELINK File path for documents provided in native format All

TEXTPATH File path for OCR or Extracted Text files All

FILE NAME Original file name of the item All

FILETYPE Application that created the file (e.g., Word, 

Outlook, Excel, Adobe)

All

FILE EXTENSION Extension of the file (e.g., .docx, .pdf, .xlsx, .msg) All

EMAIL FOLDER(S) Folder location of the email within the .PST/.OST Email

FROM Sender Email

TO Recipient Email

CC Additional Recipients Email

BCC Blind Additional Recipients Email

SUBJECT Subject line of email Email

PARENTBATES BEGBATES number for the parent email of a

family (will not be populated for documents that

are not part of a family)

Email

ATTACHBATES Bates number from the first page of each

attachment

Email

Case 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM Document 50 Filed 08/09/22 Page 19 of 22
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

Case No. 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF ESI

20

BEGATTACH First Bates number of family range (i.e., Bates

number of the first page of the parent email)

Email

ENDATTACH Last Bates number of family range (i.e., Bates

number of the last page of the last attachment)

Email

DATESENT

(mm/dd/yyyy hh:mm:ss

AM/PM)

Date Sent Email

DATERCVD

(mm/dd/yyyy hh:mm:ss

AM/PM)

Date Received

Email

EMAILDATSORT

(mm/dd/yyyy hh:mm:ss

AM/PM)

Sent Date of the parent email (i.e., physically top

email in a chain)

Email

HASHVALUE MD5 hash value (or an alternatively agreed upon 

hash value) for email, attachments, and 

electronic documents, computed at the time of

processing

All

TITLE Internal document property Electronic Data

AUTHOR Creator of an Electronic Document Electronic Data

DATECRTD

(mm/dd/yyyy hh:mm:ss 

AM/PM)

Creation Date Electronic Data

LASTMODD

(mm/dd/yyyy hh:mm:ss 

AM/PM)

Last Modified Date Electronic Data

LASTMODBY Last Modified By All

Redacted For documents that contain redactions, tags 

indicating (1) Privileged Material Redacted or (2) 

Personally Identifying Information Redacted

All

ProdVol Name of media that data was produced on All

Confidentiality Confidentiality level if assigned pursuant to any

applicable Protective Order or stipulation

All

Case 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM Document 50 Filed 08/09/22 Page 20 of 22
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

Case No. 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF ESI

21

EXHIBIT B

Initial Custodian List

Alex Horn

Lance Aytman

Keith Hooker

Brian Bettencourt

Laura Burns

Donald Dorsey

Lino Vidal

Pat Portner

Achristalyn Hernandez 

Doris Trujillo

Sheri Gaunt

David Bogan

Emma Bittner

Jacob Perez

Donald Brown

Annette Harper

Leo Coleman

Larry Ficken

Chad Buechel

Patricia Melendez

Ana Chavez

Debbie Vlotho

Case 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM Document 50 Filed 08/09/22 Page 21 of 22
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

Case No. 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF ESI

22

ORDER

The Court adopts the parties’ Stipulation Regarding Production of Electronically Stored 

Information (“ESI”) filed on August 5, 2022. (Doc. 49.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2022 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-01258-JLT-BAM Document 50 Filed 08/09/22 Page 22 of 22