Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-03848/USCOURTS-cand-3_17-cv-03848-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cisco Systems, Inc.
Defendant
XpertUniverse, Inc.
Plaintiff

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 

1 

STIPULATION & ORDER RE: DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION FOR PATENT LITIGATION

Case No. 3:17-cv-03848-RS 

K. Lee Marshall (SBN 277092)

Alexandra C. Whitworth (SBN 303046) 

BRYAN CAVE LLP 

Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111-4078 

Telephone: (415) 675-3444 

Facsimile: (415) 675-3434 

klmarshall@bryancave.com 

alex.whitworth@bryancave.com 

J. Bennett Clark (pro hac vice) 

Daniel A. Crowe (pro hac vice) 

BRYAN CAVE LLP 

One Metropolitan Square 

211 North Broadway, Suite 3600 

St. Louis, MO 63102 

Telephone: (314) 259-2000 

Facsimile: (314) 259-2020 

ben.clark@bryancave.com 

dacrowe@bryancave.com 

Joseph J. Richetti (pro hac vice) 

Alexander D. Walden (pro hac vice) 

BRYAN CAVE LLP 

1290 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, NY 10104 

Telephone: (212) 541-2000 

Facsimile: (212) 541-4630 

joe.richetti@bryancave.com 

alexander.walden@bryancave.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff XpertUniverse, Inc. 

DUANE MORRIS LLP

Richard L. Seabolt (CA SBN 67469) 

rlseabolt@duanemorris.com 

Patrick S. Salceda (CA SBN 247978) 

psalceda@duanemorris.com 

One Market Plaza 

Spear Tower, Suite 2200 

San Francisco, CA 94105-1127 

Telephone: (415) 957-3084 

Facsimile: (650) 618-2713 

DESMARAIS LLP 

John M. Desmarais (NY SBN 2261782) 

Admitted Pro Hac Vice

jdesmarais@desmaraisllp.com 

Tamir Packin (SBN 317249) 

tpackin@desmaraisllp.com 

C. Austin Ginnings (NY SBN 4986691) 

Admitted Pro Hac Vice

aginnings@desmaraisllp.com 

Lindsey Miller (NY SBN 5095740) 

Admitted Pro Hac Vice

lmiller@desmaraisllp.com 

230 Park Avenue 

New York, New York 10169 

Telephone: (212) 351-3400 

Facsimile: (212) 351-3401 

Attorneys for Defendant 

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

XPERTUNIVERSE, INC. 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. 

Defendant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case Number: 3:17-cv-03848-RS 

STIPULATION & ORDER RE: 

DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY 

STORED INFORMATION FOR PATENT 

LITIGATION 

Upon the stipulation of the parties, the Court ORDERS as follows: 

Case 3:17-cv-03848-RS Document 74 Filed 03/12/18 Page 1 of 9
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 

2 

STIPULATION & ORDER RE: DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION FOR PATENT LITIGATION

Case No. 3:17-cv-03848-RS 

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.” This order does 

not govern source code, which is governed by the Stipulated Protective Order in this action. 

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 Checklist for Rule 26(f) Meet and Confer 

regarding Electronically Stored Information. 

6. Except as otherwise set forth herein, absent reasonable justification, general ESI 

production requests under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 34 and 45, or in compliance with a 

mandatory disclosure requirement of this Court, shall not include metadata. However, fields 

showing the date and time that the document was sent and received, as well as the complete 

distribution list and the filename and file extension, shall generally be included in the production if 

such fields exist and the producing party or the producing party’s vendor shall include the 

following fields: (a) BEGBATES; (b) ENDBATES; (c) BEGATTACH; (d) ENDATTACH; (e) 

CUSTODIAN; and (f) CONFIDENTIALITY. 

7. Absent agreement of the parties or further order of this court, the following 

parameters in paragraphs A-J shall apply to ESI production: 

A. General Document Image Format. 

8. Each electronic document shall be produced in either: single-page Tagged Image 

Case 3:17-cv-03848-RS Document 74 Filed 03/12/18 Page 2 of 9
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 

3 

STIPULATION & ORDER RE: DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION FOR PATENT LITIGATION

Case No. 3:17-cv-03848-RS 

File Format (“TIFF”) format or in native format or in a format otherwise mutually agreed upon by 

the parties. 

9. TIFF files shall be single page and each page footer shall bear a unique production 

number and appropriate confidentiality designation, if any. Each TIFF file shall be named with the 

unique production number followed by the appropriate file extension. Load files shall be provided 

to indicate the location and unitization of the TIFF files. If a document is more than one page, the 

unitization of the document and any attachments and/or affixed notes shall be maintained as they 

existed in the original document. A party that receives a document produced in TIFF format may 

make a reasonable request to receive the document in its native format, and upon receipt of such a 

request, the producing party shall produce the document in its native format. The parties shall be 

cooperative and negotiate in good faith regarding the request. If the parties reach an impasse 

regarding the form of production, the party seeking production in native format can apply to the 

Court for resolution of the impasse. Excel, PowerPoint, Word, PDF, html, and other web-page 

related files and data (“Native Files”) shall be produced in native format without requiring such a 

request. 

10. Native format files shall be labeled with a unique production number and 

appropriate confidentiality designation, if any, in the file name or on the disks, hard drives, or 

other media containing such electronic files. Any file produced in native format shall be named to 

match the beginning Bates number of their corresponding entries in the database load files and 

shall be scanned for viruses. To the extent any party prints native format files (either to PDF or to 

paper), that party may not modify the native file before printing, except that the printed copy shall 

contain a footer with the production number and confidentiality designation and that resizing and 

reformatting of native files for printing purposes are permissible so long as the witness has the 

ability to confirm that the data remains unchanged from the original produced native file. For the 

purposes of page identification, a party may include an extension on the production number that 

indicates the page number. E.g., Document XU00001, may include the production number 

XU00001.001 on the first page, XU00001.002 on the second page, and so forth. 

Case 3:17-cv-03848-RS Document 74 Filed 03/12/18 Page 3 of 9
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 

4 

STIPULATION & ORDER RE: DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION FOR PATENT LITIGATION

Case No. 3:17-cv-03848-RS 

B. Text-Searchable Documents. 

11. No party has an obligation to make its production text-searchable; however, if a 

party’s documents already exist in text-searchable format independent of this litigation, or are 

converted to text-searchable format for use in this litigation, including for use by the producing 

party’s counsel, then such documents shall be produced in the same text-searchable format at no 

cost to the receiving party. 

C. Database Load Files.

12. A production shall be provided with (a) an ASCII delimited data file (.dat) using 

Concordance default delimiters, and (b) an Opticon (Concordance Image) image load file (.opt) 

that can be loaded into Concordance version 10 or above as well as Relativity. In addition to the 

metadata fields identified herein each .dat file shall include links to multi-page (document level) 

text files (“Text Path”).

D. No Backup Restoration Required. 

13. Absent a showing of good cause, no party need restore any form of media upon 

which backup data is maintained in a party’s normal or allowed processes, including but not 

limited to backup tapes, disks, SAN, and other forms of media, to comply with its discovery 

obligations in the present case.

E. Voicemail and Mobile Devices.

14. Voice-mails, instant messages and other non-email forms of electronic messages, 

and data from PDAs and mobile phones (collectively, “PDA Data”) need not be collected initially 

in response to production requests, although the parties shall take reasonable efforts to preserve 

relevant data from sources and custodians likely to have such data. The parties will meet and 

confer regarding whether there is reasonable justification for production of PDA Data at any time 

after review of the parties’ initial document productions and/or after email productions, one or 

more depositions and/or further discovery. 

F. De-duplication. 

15. Each producing party shall de-duplicate ESI on a global level (across all custodians) 

Case 3:17-cv-03848-RS Document 74 Filed 03/12/18 Page 4 of 9
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 

5 

STIPULATION & ORDER RE: DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION FOR PATENT LITIGATION

Case No. 3:17-cv-03848-RS 

prior to production.1 The basis for such de-duplication shall be the MD5 or SHA1 hash values, or 

some other later agreed to de-duplication method such as full text de-duplication. The parties shall 

instruct their ESI processing vendors to take attachments into account for generating either the 

MD5 or SHA1 hash values for email. The custodians of de-duplicated copies of documents should 

be included in the database load file, either in the CUSTODIAN field, or alternatively, in a field 

for duplicative or other custodians (e.g., DUPE CUSTODIAN).

G. Parents and Attachments.

16. Each party may produce email and email attachments in native format, provided 

that the manner of production preserves the link between each email and its attachment. Parent 

documents and attachments, enclosures or exhibits are considered separate documents for the 

purposes of assessing responsiveness to email production requests. To the extent parent documents 

with attachments, enclosures, or exhibits are produced, they should be produced so as to maintain 

the relationship between the parent document and associated attachments, enclosures, or exhibits; 

e.g., they should be produced with attachments immediately following the parent email and with 

the entire production range for the email and attachment (e.g., BEGATTACH and ENDATTACH) 

assigned to the metadata fields for the email and attachment. Email shall be produced in a manner 

that preserves all bibliographic metadata (including without limitation the custodian, the sender, all 

addressees, the exact date and time on which the email was received and/or sent, and the subject or 

“re:” line).

H. Technical Requirements. 

17. Consistent with the foregoing, the parties shall make reasonable efforts to provide 

data in accordance with the following technical requirements, to the extent applicable:

1. DAT file (using Concordance delimiters) containing Bates, metadata, 

OCR and Native path information. Standard fields include: ProdBegNo, 

1 The deduplication need not occur across files that were produced in the previous Delaware action, 

XpertUniverse, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:09-cv-00157-RGA The parties are working 

together to ensure that they each have complete productions from that case. 

Case 3:17-cv-03848-RS Document 74 Filed 03/12/18 Page 5 of 9
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 

STIPULATION & ORDER RE: DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION FOR PATENT LITIGATION

Case No. 3:17-cv-03848-RS 

ProdEndNo, BegAttach, EndAttach, Email Sent Date, Doc Creation Date, 

Doc Modified Date, DocType, PGCount, Custodian, Author, Recipient(s), 

CC, BCC, Subject, Doc Title, File Extension, File Size, File Name, Hash 

Value, Native Link Path, and OCR Link Path. 

2. Single-page tiff images (named after Bates numbers) 

3. Document level OCR text files (named after document Begin Bates 

numbers) 

4. OPT and/or LFP load file 

5. The production volume subfolders should be organized as follows: 

a. Data folder containing the DAT and OPT/LFP files 

b. OCR folder containing the OCR text files 

c. Images folder containing the tiff images 

d. Native folder for native files 

I. Email Production Requests. 

18. 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. 

19. Email production requests shall only be propounded for specific issues, rather than 

general discovery of a product or business. 

20. The parties shall meet and confer as soon as feasible to define the scope of 

responsive data, particularly email, that will serve as the basis for discovery. Specifically, the 

Parties shall meet and confer and either reach agreement or a defined impasse on the sources of 

potentially relevant and responsive data, including (a) identification of key custodians; (b) search 

terms and/or methodology; (c) type and categories of documents and files that comprise responsive 

data (e.g., spreadsheets, databases, emails, notes); and (d) identification of relevant data locations. 

21. Email production requests shall be phased to occur after the parties have met and 

conferred regarding the scope of responsive data as described in the foregoing paragraph.. 

22. 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. 

23. Each requesting party shall limit its email production requests to a total of five 

Case 3:17-cv-03848-RS Document 74 Filed 03/12/18 Page 6 of 9
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 

7 

STIPULATION & ORDER RE: DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION FOR PATENT LITIGATION

Case No. 3:17-cv-03848-RS 

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. 

24. Each requesting party shall limit its email production requests to a total of ten 

search terms per custodian per party. The parties may jointly agree to modify this limit without the 

Court’s leave. 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. 

25. Once a requesting party makes an email production request (i.e., identifies a 

custodian, time frame, and search terms), the producing party shall apply the request and within 

two weeks provide the requesting party with the total number of document hits responsive to the 

request. To the extent feasible, the parties shall cooperate so that search terms do not result in an 

unduly burdensome number of documents. To this end, the producing party shall identify the 

number of document hits for each search term for each custodian. The requesting party shall then 

meet and confer with the responding party in a reasonable effort to narrow any term that the 

responding party reasonably believes creates an undue burden by, for example, using narrowing 

search criteria as explained above, limiting the time period, or by replacing the term (to the extent 

feasible), while still capturing the intended scope of responsive data. In the event the parties do 

not agree on such narrowing, the producing party may request cost-shifting, and the Court may 

consider whether any party should bear reasonable costs caused by the production of documents in 

Case 3:17-cv-03848-RS Document 74 Filed 03/12/18 Page 7 of 9
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 

8 

STIPULATION & ORDER RE: DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION FOR PATENT LITIGATION

Case No. 3:17-cv-03848-RS 

excess of a reasonable number for any particular search term in light of the relative relevance and 

importance of the email production request and reasonableness of the proposed search term. 

26. To the extent an email production request for a particular custodian results in fewer 

than twenty thousand responsive documents, that request shall be deemed presumptively 

reasonable, and the burden will shift to the producing party to identify any inappropriate search 

term(s). Once the parties agree upon an email production request (i.e., the custodian, time frame, 

and search terms), the producing party shall produce all documents responsive to that request 

except for those upon which there is a claim of privilege or work product. 

27. 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. 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 

in light of the relative relevance and importance of the email production request and 

reasonableness of the proposed search term. 

28. 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: March 5, 2018 /s/ Joseph J. Richetti

Joseph J. Richetti (pro hac vice)

Attorneys for Plaintiff XpertUniverse, Inc.

Dated: March 5, 2018 /s/ Richard L. Seabolt

Richard L. Seabolt

Attorneys for Defendant Cisco Systems, Inc.

Case 3:17-cv-03848-RS Document 74 Filed 03/12/18 Page 8 of 9
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 

9 

STIPULATION & ORDER RE: DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION FOR PATENT LITIGATION

Case No. 3:17-cv-03848-RS 

Pursuant to L.R. 5-1, I, Joseph J. Richetti, hereby attest that all signatures listed above, on 

whose behalf this Stipulation is submitted. 

Dated: March 5, 2018 /s/ Joseph J. Richetti

Joseph J. Richetti (pro hac vice)

Attorneys for Plaintiff XpertUniverse, Inc.

IT IS ORDERED that the forgoing Stipulation is approved. 

Dated: 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT/MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3/12/18

Case 3:17-cv-03848-RS Document 74 Filed 03/12/18 Page 9 of 9