Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00235/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00235-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cutera, Inc.
Plaintiff
Lutronic Aesthetics, Inc.
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

ORDER RE DISCOVERY OF ESI

CASE NO. 2:20-CV-00235-KJM-DB -1-

ULRICO S. ROSALES, State Bar No. 139809

Email: rrosales@wsgr.com

MEAGHAN A. SNYDER, State Bar No. 279392

Email: msnyder@wsgr.com

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI

Professional Corporation

650 Page Mill Road

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050

Telephone: (650) 493-9300

Facsimile: (650) 565-5100

Attorneys for Plaintiff

CUTERA, INC.

JAMES A. ODLUM, State Bar No.109766 

Email: jodlum@mohlaw.com

MARSHALL L. BRUBACHER, State Bar No. 199100

Email: mbrubacher@mohlaw.com

MUNDELL, ODLUM & HAWS, LLP

650 E. Hospitality Lane, Suite 470

San Bernardino, CA 92408

Telephone: (909) 890-9500

Facsimile: (909) 890-9580

Attorneys for Defendant

LUTRONIC AESTHETICS, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CUTERA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

LUTRONIC AESTHETICS, INC., and 

Does 1-20,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 2:20-cv-00235 KJM DB

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE 

DISCOVERY OF 

ELECTRONICALLY STORED 

INFORMATION

Case 2:20-cv-00235-KJM-DB Document 62 Filed 02/08/22 Page 1 of 14
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

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE DISCOVERY

OF ESI

CASE NO. 2:20-CV-00235-KJM-DB

-2-

Plaintiff Cutera, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Cutera”) and Defendant Lutronic Aesthetics, 

Inc. (“Defendant” or “Lutronic”), together, the “Parties,” by and through their respective 

counsel of record, hereby submit the following Stipulation and Proposed Order regarding 

Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”):

WHEREAS, following an informal discovery conference with Magistrate Judge 

Barnes, the Parties have agreed that a protocol regarding ESI will be useful to the Parties 

in conducting discovery in this matter due to the voluminous amount of data at issue;

WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed on the ESI protocol set forth below;

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the Parties, and subject to the 

Court’s approval, by and through the undersigned counsel, that the following Order re 

Discovery of ESI be entered in this matter:

///

///

///

Case 2:20-cv-00235-KJM-DB Document 62 Filed 02/08/22 Page 2 of 14
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

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE DISCOVERY

OF ESI

CASE NO. 2:20-CV-00235-KJM-DB

-3-

1. PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS

This Order will govern discovery of ESI in this case as a supplement to the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Federal Rules”), the Local Rules of the Eastern 

District of California (“Local Rules”), and any other applicable orders and rules. Except 

as otherwise agreed by the Parties, technical terms used herein and in discovery requests 

and responses shall follow or be defined by the “The Sedona Conference Glossary: EDiscovery and Digital Information Management” (Fifth Edition).

2. COOPERATION

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

commit to cooperate in good faith throughout the matter, including with respect to 

proportionality of discovery, reasonable efforts to ensure discovery of important 

information, and early and prompt communication regarding discovery issues.

3. ESI LIAISONS

On or before February 14, 2022, the Parties will identify persons knowledgeable 

about and who are responsible for discussing ESI discovery with each other. The Parties 

may subsequently substitute such designated persons or identify additional persons 

knowledgeable about ESI. Such persons will be, or have access to those who are, 

knowledgeable about the technical aspects of e- discovery, including the location, nature, 

accessibility, format, harvesting/collection, search methodologies, and production of ESI 

in this matter. These persons will be available as needed to confer about ESI and to help 

resolve disputes without court intervention.

4. PRESERVATION

The Parties have discussed their preservation obligations and needs and agree that

preservation of potentially relevant ESI will be reasonable and proportionate. To reduce 

the costs and burdens of preservation and to ensure proper ESI is preserved, the Parties 

agree that:

(a) The Parties shall disclose information necessary to understand the current

Case 2:20-cv-00235-KJM-DB Document 62 Filed 02/08/22 Page 3 of 14
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

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE DISCOVERY

OF ESI

CASE NO. 2:20-CV-00235-KJM-DB

-4-

scope of preservation and whether any actions need to be taken to ensure appropriate

preservation. In general, the Parties agree that ESI created or received before January 31, 

2019, is not generally subject to preservation and harvesting for all discovery purposes, 

but this Order does not relieve a party of its obligations to preserve and harvest ESI 

created before January 1, 2019, if the party is aware of ESI that is likely to contain 

relevant and discoverable information and if an efficient method might be identified to 

harvest such ESI relating to certain issues in this case;

(b) By January 14, 2022, the Parties will exchange (i) a list of the types of ESI

they believe should be preserved, including non-custodial sources, e.g., sharepoints, 

databases, e-mail servers, shared drives, backup tapes, etc., (ii) the number and identity of 

custodians, including the names or general job titles or descriptions of custodians, for 

whom they believe ESI should be preserved, e.g., “Senior Marketing Manager,” “Lead 

Product Manager,” and “Director – Customer Service;” (iii) a general description of the 

default time periods for preservation for the categories of data above; and (iv) a 

description of any potentially relevant ESI data sources that the party is aware of having 

been lost or destroyed, and a description of the circumstances of such loss or destruction, 

if the ESI was potentially responsive and not duplicated on a readily accessible source. 

The Parties agree to produce or describe information governance and document retention 

policies or practices (e.g., retention schedules or policies for electronic or hard copy 

documents, auto-delete functions, mailbox size limits, and advanced analytics) that may 

have an impact on the existence or accessibility of responsive documents or ESI. The 

Parties shall meet and confer in order to add, remove, or modify custodians, data sources, 

and search/harvest methodologies as reasonably necessary;

(c) The Parties will meet and confer and use best efforts to agree on data 

sources that are not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(B), and ESI from these sources will either not be preserved or be 

preserved but not searched, reviewed, or produced; and

Case 2:20-cv-00235-KJM-DB Document 62 Filed 02/08/22 Page 4 of 14
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

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE DISCOVERY

OF ESI

CASE NO. 2:20-CV-00235-KJM-DB

-5-

(d) As additional data sources are identified as a result of investigation and/or

discovery, the Parties may identify additional data sources that may or may not need to be

searched or preserved pursuant to the foregoing. The Parties will meet and confer about

preserving such ESI as any additional data sources are identified.

5. SEARCH

The Parties recognize that a variety of search tools and methodologies, including 

but not limited to technology assisted review (“TAR”) tools, exist and should be 

considered and discussed by the Parties. Where potentially responsive ESI shall be 

searched using search terms, the Parties agree to propose search terms they intend to 

employ to search for certain relevant and responsive documents. In the first instance, the 

producing party will propose search terms for the consideration of the receiving party.

Agreement on a search methodology does not relieve a Party of its obligation 

under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to conduct a diligent search and reasonable 

inquiry and produce all relevant and responsive documents of which a party is aware, 

regardless of whether they contain search terms or some other search methodology 

agreed to by the Parties or ordered by the Court. Discovery requests shall govern the 

scope of documents to be produced, subject to any agreements reached during the Parties’ 

conferral, and search terms do not supplant discovery requests. To the extent a Party is 

aware of non-duplicative documents that are relevant, responsive, non-privileged, and 

reasonably accessible, such documents will be produced regardless of whether they 

contain search terms or some other search methodology agreed to by the Parties or 

ordered by the Court.

A Party may use TAR to sort documents for linear review without disclosure of 

that use.

If a Party elects to use TAR to cull or otherwise limit the volume of unstructured 

ESI subject to linear review, a producing Party shall describe to a requesting Party the 

vendor and the TAR technology or tool being used, including a description of the TAR 

Case 2:20-cv-00235-KJM-DB Document 62 Filed 02/08/22 Page 5 of 14
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

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE DISCOVERY

OF ESI

CASE NO. 2:20-CV-00235-KJM-DB

-6-

tool’s procedures.

Additionally, a producing Party need not conduct any additional review of 

information subjected to, but not retrieved by, a TAR tool as part of the identification of 

the subset of information that will be subject to review and production.

Nothing in this Order shall be construed as precluding a producing party from 

performing a privilege review to determine if certain documents should be withheld.

The Parties further agree that each party will use its best efforts to filter out 

common system files and application executable files by using a commercially 

reasonable hash identification process. Hash values that may be filtered out during this 

process are located in the National Software Reference Library (“NSRL”) NIST hash set 

list.

6. PRODUCTION FORMATS

With the exception of spreadsheets, presentation files, multi-media files and other

native files that cannot be converted to image files, the Parties shall produce all relevant, 

responsive, and non-privileged ESI as Bates-stamped single-page 1-bit TIFF images with 

a DAT load file that enables the document to be uploaded and viewed using standard 

litigation support software in accordance with the provisions below. Unless excepted 

below, single page, 1-bit, black and white Group IV TIFFs should be provided, at least 

300 dots per inch (dpi) for all documents.

Original document orientation should be maintained (i.e., portrait to portrait and 

landscape to landscape). Where the TIFF image is unreadable or has materially degraded 

the quality of the original, the producing party shall provide a higher quality TIFF image, 

color JPG, or the native or original file.

(a) Production Media. The Parties shall produce documents in an encrypted 

format through electronic means, such as external hard drives, secure file sharing 

methods (e.g., FTP), or readily accessible computer or electronic media (e.g., CDs, 

DVDs) (collectively, “Production Media”), with explicit decryption instructions. 

Case 2:20-cv-00235-KJM-DB Document 62 Filed 02/08/22 Page 6 of 14
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

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE DISCOVERY

OF ESI

CASE NO. 2:20-CV-00235-KJM-DB

-7-

Productions shall have the following four directories: (1) IMAGES for the images; (2) 

DATA for the .dat and .opt files; (3) TEXT for the extracted text/OCR files; and (4) 

NATIVES for any native Excel, Powerpoint, multi-media, or other files that cannot be 

understood reasonably unless displayed in native format. The producing party shall 

identify: (a) the Responding Party’s name; (b) the production date; and (c) the Bates

Number range of the materials contained on the Production Media.

(b) Unique IDs. Images shall be produced using a unique file name that will be 

the Bates number of that page (e.g., ABC000001.TIFF). The Bates number must appear 

on the face of the image and not obliterate, conceal, or interfere with any information 

from the source document. Native files shall be produced using a name that will bear the 

production number and any confidentiality designation as well as the original file name 

(e.g., ABC000002_Confidential_OriginalFilename.xls).

(c) Parent-Child Relationships. Parent-child relationships (association between 

an attachment and its parent document) shall be preserved. The attachment(s) shall be 

produced adjacent to the parent document, in terms of Bates numbers, with the first 

attachment being named with the next sequential number after the parent, and any 

additional attachment(s) sequentially numbered after that first attachment.

(d) Redactions. If the Parties are redacting information from a page, they shall

electronically “burn” the word “Redacted” onto the page or otherwise clearly indicate a 

redaction at or reasonably near to the location of the redaction(s), as set forth in the 

stipulated Protective Order in this matter. If documents that the Parties have agreed to 

produce in native format need to be redacted, the Parties agree to meet and confer in good 

faith on how to best produce the documents so that proper formatting and usability are 

maintained.

(e) Confidentiality Designation. Responsive documents in TIFF format will be

stamped with the appropriate confidentiality designations in accordance with the 

Protective Order entered in this matter. Each responsive document produced in native 

Case 2:20-cv-00235-KJM-DB Document 62 Filed 02/08/22 Page 7 of 14
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

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE DISCOVERY

OF ESI

CASE NO. 2:20-CV-00235-KJM-DB

-8-

format will have its confidentiality designation identified in the filename of the native file 

and indicated on its corresponding TIFF placeholder.

(f) Metadata Fields. The Parties shall provide the system generated and 

metadata fields (the “Production Fields”) substantially similar to those set forth in Exhibit 

A, to the extent these fields are available.

(g) Native Format. The Responding Party shall produce spreadsheets (e.g., 

Excel), presentation files (e.g., PowerPoint), and any other materials not readily 

convertible to TIFF format (e.g. three-dimensional design files) in native format. To the 

extent that they are produced in this action, audio, video, and multimedia files will be 

produced in native format. If a native file originally had track changes, comments, or 

other collaborative change features turned on, the .TIF file will display those changes in 

the converted image file. Native files shall be produced with a link in the NATIVEPATH 

field, along with extracted text (where extracted text is available) and applicable metadata 

fields set forth in Exhibit A, to the extent these fields are available. For each native file 

produced, the production will include a *.tiff image slipsheet indicating the production 

number of the native file and the confidentiality designation and stating, “File Provided 

Natively” (or substantially similar). Native files will be produced in a separate folder on 

the production media. TIFF images of e-mail messages should include the BCC line. 

Upon request from the receiving party that any files be produced in native format

(identified by Bates number), the Parties agree to meet and confer in good faith 

concerning such requests. A request for such production shall not be unreasonably 

denied. The Parties agree to meet and confer regarding a protocol for use of native files at 

depositions, hearings, or trial.

(h) Text Files. For each produced document, a document-level text file shall be

provided in addition to the image files (TIFFs). The text of native files should be 

extracted directly from the native file and each text file will be named using its 

corresponding beginning bates number (e.g., ABC000001.TXT). For ESI with redacted 

Case 2:20-cv-00235-KJM-DB Document 62 Filed 02/08/22 Page 8 of 14
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

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE DISCOVERY

OF ESI

CASE NO. 2:20-CV-00235-KJM-DB

-9-

text, a commercially acceptable technology for Optical Character Recognition (“OCR”) 

shall be used for all scanned, hard copy documents with redactions.

(i) Physical/Hard Copy Documents. Nothing herein shall relieve the Parties of 

any obligations they may have to search for responsive Documents in hard copy form. 

The Parties shall produce documents that exist solely in physical hard-copy format 

following this ESI Stipulation. The metadata shall indicate document breaks and identify 

the custodian or non-person custodial source from whom/where the document was 

collected. The documents should be logically unitized using reasonable best efforts. The 

“.tiff’ files shall be subject to an OCR process. The OCR software should maximize text 

quality over process speed. Settings such as “auto-skewing” and “auto-rotation” should 

be turned on during the OCR process. The Parties will meet and confer to address 

instances of undue burden and will work to negotiate an appropriate solution.

(j) Databases and Other Structured Data. The Parties shall meet and confer

regarding the production format and scope of data contained in enterprise database or 

database management system (e.g., Oracle, SQL server, DB2), including the types of 

information stored in the database(s), the types of reports that can be generated from or 

for the data, whether there are existing and reasonably available reports that include the 

information, and whether the receiving Party will need any information in native form in 

order to ensure that any information produced is reasonably usable by the receiving party 

and that its production does not impose an undue burden. To avoid doubt, information 

will be considered reasonably usable when produced in CSV format, tab-delimited text 

format, Microsoft Excel format, or Microsoft Access format.

(k) Duplicates. The Responding Party may use software to identify duplicate

documents that are in files of individual or multiple Production Custodians. To the extent 

there are duplicate documents, the Responding Party need only produce a single copy of 

a responsive document, unless the Requesting Party reasonably requests the duplicate 

document for a legitimate reason. Removal of duplicate documents should only be done 

Case 2:20-cv-00235-KJM-DB Document 62 Filed 02/08/22 Page 9 of 14
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

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE DISCOVERY

OF ESI

CASE NO. 2:20-CV-00235-KJM-DB

-10-

on exact duplicate documents (based on MD5 or SHA-1 hash values, at the family level 

only). Attachments should not be eliminated as duplicates for purposes of production, 

unless the parent e-mail and all attachments are also duplicates. De-duplication should be 

done across the entire collection (i.e., global level) and the CUSTODIAN and PATH 

fields should list each custodian and file path, respectively, separated by a semicolon. To 

accommodate for rolling productions, for ESI that is removed as a duplicate from earlier 

productions, the producing party should provide an overlay file along with or within a 

reasonable time after each production.

(l) Email Threading. Where multiple email messages are part of a single chain 

or “thread,” a party is only required to produce the most inclusive message (“Last In 

Time Email”) and need not produce earlier, less inclusive email messages or “thread 

members” that are fully contained, including attachments, and including identical senders 

and recipients, within the Last In Time Email. Only email messages for which the parent 

document and all attachments are contained in the Last In Time Email will be considered 

less inclusive email messages that need not be produced.

7. PHASING

The Parties agree to meet and confer concerning whether the production of 

responsive ESI should occur in phases, by prioritizing selected sources and/or custodians.

8. DOCUMENTS PROTECTED FROM DISCOVERY

(a) Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502(d), the production of a privileged or workproduct-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.

(b) The producing party shall also provide a privilege log containing the 

categories, or fields, of information identified in Exhibit B hereto, to the extent available, 

Case 2:20-cv-00235-KJM-DB Document 62 Filed 02/08/22 Page 10 of 14
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

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE DISCOVERY

OF ESI

CASE NO. 2:20-CV-00235-KJM-DB

-11-

unless otherwise agreed in writing or pursuant to a court order.

(c) Communications involving a party’s counsel (including all attorneys, staff 

or other personnel) that post-date the filing of the complaint need not be placed on a 

privilege log. Communications may be identified on a privilege log by category, rather 

than individually, if appropriate.

9. MODIFICATION

This Stipulated Order may be modified by a Stipulated Order of the Parties or by 

the Court for good cause shown.

IT IS SO STIPULATED, through Counsel of Record.

Dated: February 3, 2022 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH &

ROSATI

Professional Corporation

By: /s/Ulrico S. Rosales_______________ Ulrico S. Rosales Meaghan A. Snyder

Attorneys for Plaintiff

CUTERA, INC.

Dated: February 3, 2022 MUNDELL, ODLUM & HAWS, LLP

By: /s/James A. Odlum_______________ James A. Odlum Marshall L. Brubacher

Attorneys for Defendant

LUTRONIC AESTHETICS, INC.

ORDER

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

DATED: February 7, 2022 /s/ DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:20-cv-00235-KJM-DB Document 62 Filed 02/08/22 Page 11 of 14
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

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE DISCOVERY

OF ESI

CASE NO. 2:20-CV-00235-KJM-DB

-12-

ATTESTATION

I hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from

every Signatory.

By: /s/Ulrico S. Rosales________________ Ulrico S. Rosales

ULRICO S. ROSALES (SBN 139809)

Case 2:20-cv-00235-KJM-DB Document 62 Filed 02/08/22 Page 12 of 14
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

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE DISCOVERY

OF ESI

CASE NO. 2:20-CV-00235-KJM-DB

-13-

Exhibit A

Production Fields

PRODUCTION 

METADATA 

FIELD

DESCRIPTION

BEGBATES Beginning Bates number assigned to each document

ENDBATES Ending Bates number assigned to each document

BEGATTACH Beginning Bates number assigned to the group of documents to which the parent 

document and any attachment documents are associated

ENDATTACH Ending Bates number assigned to the group of documents to which the parent 

document and any attachment documents are associated

CUSTODIANS The custodian, (or multiple custodians for globally de-duped documents) of a 

document

RECORDTYPE The type of record (e.g., email, attachment)

DOCTYPE

Document type as identified by metadata associated with the native document 

indicating the application that created the native document (e.g., Google Docs, 

Microsoft Word 6.0, Gmail, Outlook Email, etc.)

EMAILSUBJECT The subject line of a produced email

AUTHOR The Author of a document

FROM The "From" line of a produced email

TO The "To" line of a produced email

CC The "CC" line of a produced email

BCC The "BCC" line of a produced email

DATESENT The date an email was sent

DATERCVD The date an email was received

DATELASTMOD The date that a document was last modified

FILENAME The filename of a produced document

FILEEXT The file extension (e.g., .txt or .pdf) of a produced document

FILEFOLDER

Fully qualified original path to the source file listing all the file locations of the 

document before de-duplication, separated by a semi-colon. Includes path up to and 

including internal path of containers.

FILESIZE The file size (in bytes) of a produced document

MD5HASH Programmatic unique hash value of a produced document

NUMATTACH The number of attachments to a document

PGCOUNT The page count of the native document

NATIVEPATH The location of the produced native version of a document

TEXTPATH The location of the extracted text/OCR text for a document

Case 2:20-cv-00235-KJM-DB Document 62 Filed 02/08/22 Page 13 of 14
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

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE DISCOVERY

OF ESI

CASE NO. 2:20-CV-00235-KJM-DB

-14-

Exhibit B

Privilege Log Fields

FIELD NAME FIELD DESCRIPTION

PrivLog # (generic number)

Generic field for tracking purposes 

(i.e. 1, 2, 3).

Date/Time

The date of the parent document (for 

emails, this is date sent; for nonemails, this is date last modified).

Subject Subject of email, text or other 

message.

Author

Author or sender of document (for 

emails, this is the From field; for nonemails, this is the person who created 

the file).

Recipients Derived from the To field.

Other Recipients Derived from the CC and BCC fields.

Document Type

General type of record (i.e., Outlook, 

PDF, PowerPoint Presentation).

Description Description of Privilege Claim.

Privilege Claimed

Type of privilege claimed (i.e., 

Attorney-Client or Attorney Client -

Work Product, etc.).

Case 2:20-cv-00235-KJM-DB Document 62 Filed 02/08/22 Page 14 of 14