UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION

CASE NO. 22-80360-CIV-CANNON

22-81569-CIV-CANNON

TRADEINVEST ASSET MANAGEMENT

COMPANY (BVI) LTD., FIRST OCEAN 

ENTERPRISES SA, and TECHVIEW 

INVESTMENTS LTD.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WILLIAM “BEAU” WRIGLEY, JR.,

JAMES HOLMES, JAMES WHITCOMB,

SH PARENT INC. d/b/a PARALLEL, and

SURTERRA HOLDINGS, INC.,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

LEGACY KNIGHT STRATEGIC

OPPORTUNITIES FUND-PARALLEL

SERIES,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILLIAM “BEAU” WRIGLEY, JR., 

JAMES HOLMES, JAMES WHITCOMB,

SH PARENT INC. d/b/a PARALLEL, and

SURTERRA HOLDINGS, INC.,

Defendants.

______________________________________/

JOINT STIPULATION ON THE PROTOCOL FOR DISCOVERY OF 

ELECTRONICALLY-STORED INFORMATION AND HARD COPY DOCUMENTS

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 82 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2024 Page 1 of 22
2

To expedite the exchange of electronically-stored information (“ESI”) and hard copy 

documents pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, Plaintiffs TradeInvest Asset Management Company 

(BVI) Ltd., First Ocean Enterprises SA, Techview Investments Ltd. and Defendants William 

“Beau” Wrigley, Jr., James Holmes, and James Whitcomb—joined by Plaintiff in a related action, 

Legacy Knight Strategic Opportunities Fund-Parallel Series and additional Defendants in the 

Legacy Knight action SH Parent Inc. d/b/a Parallel and Surterra Holdings, Inc. (collectively, the 

“Parties”)—by and through undersigned counsel of record, hereby stipulate to the entry of the 

following Protocol for Discovery of ESI and hard copy documents (“ESI Protocol”) in both of the 

above-captioned actions.

1

The Parties stipulate as follows:

I. DEFINITIONS

The following definitions shall be used in construing the meaning of the ESI Protocol 

contained herein:

a. “Communication” or “Communications” refers to any exchange of information 

by any means of transmission. 

b. “Document” or “Documents” shall have the same meaning and be equal in scope 

to the usage of the term in Rule 34(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and 

includes any “Communications” as defined above, as well as “writings” and 

“recordings” as defined by Rule 1001 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. A nonidentical copy or translation is a separate document within the meaning of this term.

c. “Electronically-stored Information” or “ESI,” as used herein, refers to computergenerated information or data, stored in or on any storage Media located on 

computers, file servers, disks, tapes, USB drives, or other real or virtualized devices 

1

 On February 20, 2024, the Court entered the Order Consolidating Cases, which 

consolidated both of the above-captioned actions for discovery purposes only. ECF No. 151, Case 

No. 22-80360; ECF No. 79, Case No. 22-81569. Accordingly, the Parties have jointly filed this 

ESI Protocol in both actions. As used herein, “Plaintiffs” refers to all Plaintiffs in both actions. 

“Defendants” refers to Defendants William “Beau” Wrigley, Jr., James Holmes, and James 

Whitcomb in both actions and Defendants SH Parent Inc. d/b/a Parallel and Surterra Holdings, 

Inc. in the Legacy Knight action alone. 

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 82 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2024 Page 2 of 22
3

or Media, as such information is defined in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

including Rule 34(a).

d. “Extracted Text” refers to the text electronically extracted from a Document and 

includes all header, footer, and Document body information, when reasonably 

available.

e. “Load File” or “Unitization File” refers to an electronic file containing 

information identifying a set of paper-scanned images or processed ESI and 

indicating where individual pages or files belong together as Documents, including 

attachments, and where each Document begins and ends. A Load File or Unitization 

File will also contain data relevant to the individual Documents, including extracted 

and user-created metadata.

f. “Media” refers to an object or device, including, but not limited to, a disc, tape, 

computer, or other device, irrespective of whether in the Producing Party’s physical 

possession, on which data is or was stored.

g. “Native Format” refers to the format of ESI in which information or data was 

generated and/or as used by the Producing Party in the usual course of its business 

and in its regularly-conducted activities. Where ESI is not stored in a portable 

Native Format, a usable exported format will suffice.

h. “OCR Text” refers to text generated through an optical character recognition 

process.

i. “Parties” refers collectively to all Plaintiffs in both of the above-captioned actions 

(TradeInvest Asset Management Company (BVI) Ltd., First Ocean Enterprises SA, 

Techview Investments Ltd., and Legacy Knight Strategic Opportunities FundParallel Series); Defendants William “Beau” Wrigley, Jr., James Holmes, and 

James Whitcomb in both actions; and Defendants SH Parent Inc. d/b/a Parallel and 

Surterra Holdings, Inc. in the Legacy Knight action alone.

j. “Party” shall refer to one or more Plaintiffs or Defendants, individually.

k. “Producing Party” refers to a Party in the above-captioned case from which 

production of ESI or hard copy Documents are sought.

l. “Requesting Party” refers to a Party in the above-captioned case seeking 

production of ESI or hard copy Documents.

II. PRODUCTION

a. DeDuplication

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 82 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2024 Page 3 of 22
4

i. General. The Parties shall use reasonable, good-faith efforts to avoid the 

production of duplicate ESI following industry-standard practices for MD5 

or SHA-1 hash comparison. Deduplication must be applied at a family level.

ii. Duplicates. 

1. To the extent that duplicate Documents (based on MD5 or SHA-1 

hash values) reside within a Party’s ESI data set, each Party shall

endeavor to produce only a single copy of a responsive Document

or record. Where any such Documents have attachments, hash 

values must be identical for the Document-plus-attachment (“family 

deduplication”). Loose electronic Documents shall not be compared 

to email attachments for deduplication. The Parties shall deduplicate 

email data across custodians and sources at a family level.

2. For any Custodian determined to have a copy of an email, email 

family, or loose electronic Document in its collection, said 

Custodian value shall be listed in the All Custodians metadata field 

for every document in the family. 

3. To the extent emails or electronic Documents are deduplicated, the 

parties agree to produce an “All File Paths” field containing the file 

path for the Document and all duplicates.

iii. No Manual Review. No Party shall identify and/or eliminate electronic 

duplicates by manual review or some method other than by use of the 

technical comparison using MD5 or SHA-1 hash values outlined above. 

b. Paper Production Format

i. Production. All paper Documents shall be produced as static images: The 

images will be in black-and-white, single page, 300 DPI, Group IV. TIFF 

images (“TIFFs”), and OCR in .TXT format with standard Load Files, 

which can be used with commercially available litigation software 

packages, and the Default Production Fields as described in Exhibit A. 

Hard copy color paper Documents will be produced in grayscale in TIFF 

format. The Parties will accommodate reasonable requests for production 

of specific images in color to the extent available. Producing Paper 

Documents in such form does not change their character from Paper 

Documents into ESI.

ii. Unitization. If a Document is more than one page, to the extent possible, the 

unitization of the Document and any attachments or affixed notes should be 

maintained as it existed when collected by the Producing Party. Parties may 

unitize their Documents using either physical unitization (i.e., based on 

physical binding or organizational elements present with the original paper 

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 82 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2024 Page 4 of 22
5

Documents like staples, clips, and binder inserts) or logical unitization (i.e., 

a manual review of the paper to determine what logically constitutes a 

Document like page numbers or headers). If unitization cannot be 

reasonably maintained, the original unitization should be documented in the 

data Load File or otherwise electronically tracked, if reasonably possible.

c. ESI Production Format 

i. General. The following provisions shall generally govern the production 

format and procedure for ESI and are subject to the other provisions 

contained herein.

1. Black-and-white, single page, 300 DPI, Group IV TIFFs.

2. Delimited Load Files for Documents (.DAT) containing a field with 

the full path and filename to native and text files along with the 

metadata fields identified in Exhibit A, to the extent that the fields 

can be extracted. The Parties are not obligated to manually populate 

any of the fields in Exhibit A if such fields cannot be reasonably 

extracted from a Document, provided that the Producing Party 

provides confidentiality and redaction information for those 

Documents;

3. Load files for images (.OPT) containing the Bates number and file 

path;

4. Document level .txt files for all Documents containing Extracted 

Text or OCR Text if Extracted Text is unavailable or if the 

Document has been redacted;

5. Bates number and Confidentiality designation (if any) on the face of 

the image;

6. Compression file styles (e.g., .ZIP) shall be decompressed in a 

reiterative manner to ensure that, for example, a .ZIP within a .ZIP 

is decompressed to the lowest possible level of compression, 

resulting in individual folders and/or files.

ii. Production of Non-Native ESI.

1. All hidden text (e.g., tracked changes, hidden columns, comments, 

notes, markups) will be expanded, extracted, and rendered in the 

TIFF file, including, but not limited to, the inclusion of any notes or 

comments contained within any PowerPoint slides/presentations 

that are produced in TIFF format;

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 82 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2024 Page 5 of 22
6

iii. Production of Native Format ESI.

1. Spreadsheets (e.g., Excel, Lotus, Google Sheets, CSV) and Media

files (e.g., .WAV, .MP3, .MP4, .MOV, .WMV, .MPEG), shall be 

produced in Native Format, except where such files are redacted.

For Google Documents, production of an export in a comparable 

format will constitute native production (e.g., Google Sheets 

Document exported in Microsoft Excel format).

2. A TIFF placeholder endorsed with the corresponding Bates number 

and confidentiality designation (if any) shall be produced for all ESI 

produced in Native Format.

iv. Request for Documents in Native Format. If a Party reasonably concludes 

that production in Native Format of any Document(s) initially produced in 

TIFF format is necessary (e.g., to decipher the complete meaning, context, 

or content; to determine whether there is any important use of color in the 

Document), such Party may request production of the original Document in 

Native Format. The Parties agree to meet and confer in good faith with 

respect to any such request. Reasonable requests for specific Documents in 

Native Format, accompanied by a reasonable explanation for the request, 

shall not be refused. 

v. Email Attachments. The Parties shall collect and produce files attached to 

emails.

1. If a Party’s document management system uses hyperlinked 

Documents or modern attachments, the Parties shall make best 

efforts to obtain and produce the version of the Document that 

existed at the time the email was sent. The Parties shall meet and 

confer if a Party cannot collect the hyperlinked Documents or 

modern attachment sent at the time the email was sent. 

2. Nothing in this subsection shall restrict the Parties’ abilities to 

provide placeholder images for any non-email attachment validly 

withheld on the basis of privilege or email attachments with 

privilege redactions in accordance with the terms of this ESI 

Protocol or any operative Protective Order or other Court order.

vi. Appearance and Content. Except for Documents containing redactions, no 

Document may be intentionally manipulated to change how the source 

Document would have appeared if printed out to a printer attached to a 

computer viewing the file, without prior agreement of the Requesting Party.

vii. Color. On a case-by-case basis, the Parties will accommodate reasonable 

requests made in good faith for the production of specific color images 

originally produced in greyscale TIFF format to the extent available and 

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 82 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2024 Page 6 of 22
7

where reasonably necessary to decipher the complete meaning, context, or 

content of the Documents.

viii. Production Stamping. Each page of a Document produced as TIFFs shall 

have a legible, unique Bates Number electronically “burned” onto the image 

at a location that does not obliterate, conceal, or interfere with any 

information from the source Document (i.e., the “Bates number”). Each file 

produced in Native Format shall be named by the Bates number, with a 

TIFF placeholder containing the same Bates number. Documents produced 

in Native Format shall also contain the confidentiality endorsement in the 

file name.

1. Bates numbering shall be consistent across the production and be 

numerically sequential. Each Document produced shall be identified 

with a Bates number, according to the following protocol:

a. The first portion of the Bates number shall contain a prefix 

which clearly identifies the producing party.

b. The second portion of the Bates number shall contain nine 

(9) numeric digits, padded with leading zeroes as needed to 

preserve its length.

2. If a Bates number or set of Bates numbers is skipped, the skipped 

number(s) should be noted with a placeholder. Within a family, be 

it emails and attachments or eDocs and attachments, Bates numbers 

shall be sequential within the family. 

ix. Organization of Hard Copy Production. A Producing Party shall organize 

Documents originally existing in hard copy as they are kept in the ordinary 

course of business, taking care to scan and produce folders, red welds, 

binder-covers, and maintain other organizational structure. Such materials 

should be produced as independent Documents and be produced before the 

Documents that were contained in these elements to the extent reasonably 

accomplishable by the above-addressed unitization (e.g., the file folder 

should have a Bates number immediately before the Documents contained 

in the file folder). The Producing Party will provide the name of the 

custodian who had possession of the Document upon its collection. A 

custodian can include an employee or person's name, a department, or an 

archive storage if the Document was stored in archive when the Party's duty 

to preserve was triggered; provided, however, to the extent that archived 

files include custodial information, it shall be provided.

x. Family Relationships of Electronic Files. 

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 82 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2024 Page 7 of 22
8

1. Each party shall preserve and appropriately reflect in a Load File the 

association between an attachment and its parent Document for ESI.

2. A parent email, whether it contains attachments or not, containing 

both privileged and responsive, non-privileged content shall be 

produced with the privileged information redacted. Headers (i.e., 

From/To/CC/BCC/Date/Time) for all emails in the email chain shall 

be produced intact. 

3. In a family being produced, any non-email attachment which is 

withheld on the basis of privilege shall either (i) be replaced with a 

Bates-stamped TIFF placeholder identifying the attachment as 

withheld as privileged; or (ii) be redacted in full and produced with 

Bates numbers on each page.

4. In a family being produced, any email attachment which contain 

privileged information shall have only the privileged information 

redacted, with header information (e.g., From, To, Sent Time) being 

produced in unredacted form.

a. The exception to header information being produced in 

unredacted form is if that header information is redacted as 

personally-identifiable information as outlined in Paragraph 

c.xv.5.

xi. Email Suppression. In the course of its review and production, a Party may 

produce only the Inclusive emails, defined as those emails within an email 

thread containing all unique content as determined by commonly-accepted 

threading analytics tools. A party may reasonably request production of an 

individual lower included email or emails from a produced email thread, 

and any such reasonable requests shall not be refused where the Document 

is available within the Producing Party's Document collection. For the sake 

of clarity, if any portion of the Inclusive email thread is privileged, the 

privileged information shall be redacted and the non-privileged information 

shall be produced, with header information included as outlined in 

Paragraph II.c.x. Additionally, any data which cannot be threaded must be 

reviewed in full with all responsive, non-privileged documents being 

produced.

xii. Production Media. Documents shall be produced via a secure file transfer 

protocol (“FTP”) site or an external hard drive or flash drive for productions 

that are too large for expedient FTP transfer pursuant to Section II.c.xiii

below, or such other readily accessible computer or electronic Media as the 

Parties may hereafter agree upon (the “Production Media”). Each piece of 

Production Media shall include a unique identifying label and cover letter 

or email including the following information:

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 82 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2024 Page 8 of 22
9

1. Name of the litigation and its case number;

2. Name of the Producing Party;

3. Date of the production in MM/DD/YYYY format;

4. Volume number;

5. Bates range;

6. Highest confidentiality designation; and 

7. Notes regarding any irregularities in the production (e.g., whether it 

is replacement Production Media, as discussed in Section II.c.xiv).

xiii. Production Media (FTP Sites).

1. Producing Parties shall produce initially via an FTP site for 

production volumes equal to or less than 100 GB. Production 

volumes of a larger size than 100 GB may be produced by FTP in 

the process described above or via an external hard drive or flash 

drive pursuant to Section II.c.xiii.

2. Any replacement productions shall cross-reference the original 

production volume, clearly identify that it is a replacement, and 

Bates stamp the documents being replaced using the same Bates 

numbers which shall now contain a -A suffixed Bates number on 

each reproduced page.

3. Producing Parties may encrypt their production media and, if so, 

shall provide a key or password to decrypt the production media in 

a separate communication.

xiv. Time. 

1. When processing non-email ESI for production in TIFF format, the 

Producing Party will instruct its vendor to turn off any automatic 

date stamping. 

2. When processing ESI, the time zone that the Producing Party has 

used to normalize time stamps during processing will be provided 

in the production metadata.

3. Parties must produce all ESI in the same time zone.

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 82 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2024 Page 9 of 22
10

4. When a metadata field includes a date and/or time, it shall be 

provided in the following format: MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM:SS. 

xv. Redactions. To the extent that a responsive Document contains (a) 

privileged content, or (b) the types of personally-identifiable information 

set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2, the Producing Party may produce that 

Document in a redacted form.

1. Any privilege redactions shall be clearly indicated on the face of the 

Document with any redacted information bearing a designation that 

it has been redacted. The designation shall make clear that the 

redaction is to withhold privileged information (e.g., "Redacted 

Privileged”).

2. Spreadsheets (e.g., Microsoft Excel, Google Sheets) requiring 

redactions are required to be produced with native redactions. 

3. Where a Document contains both privileged and non-privileged 

responsive content, the Producing Party shall redact the privileged 

material as outlined in this ESI Protocol and produce the remainder 

of the Document without redactions.

4. Metadata shall not be withheld for Documents redacted for 

privilege, except that if a Party desires, it may withhold the 

following metadata (Subject; FileName; Attachment Names; All 

File Path; and MD5 Hash). These five metadata fields can be 

withheld for all Documents containing privileged redactions

regardless of whether this metadata is redacted for privilege. No 

other metadata shall be withheld from Documents redacted for 

privilege.

5. Redactions for personally-identifiable information shall be made 

with a black box.

6. If metadata is being redacted for personally-identifiable 

information, that particular metadata shall be withheld from the 

production deliverable. 

7. All Documents containing a redaction, whether on the image or 

within the native Document, shall contain a “Yes” value in the 

Redacted field as outlined in the Default Production Fields in 

Exhibit A.

8. The Parties agree to meet and confer in good faith to attempt to 

resolve any dispute arising under this paragraph.

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 82 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2024 Page 10 of 22
11

d. Search Protocol

i. Identification of Individual and Departmental Custodians. ESI will be 

collected from an agreed upon-set of custodians for each Party. 

Simultaneously with the service of its initial responses and objections to 

requests for production, a Party shall propose a list of its own custodians 

from whom it proposes to collect ESI. The other Party may propose 

additional custodians, and the Parties shall expeditiously confer in good 

faith to finalize a custodian list. If, after a Party has made a Document 

production, the Receiving Party believes that the Producing Party failed to 

identify relevant custodians, the Parties agree to expeditiously meet and 

confer in good faith to resolve whether the Producing Party must collect ESI 

from the additional custodians. If a Party maintains an enterprise-wide 

archive of electronic messages through Global Relay Archive or a similar 

service, the Party may collect those message types from that archive and 

need not collect or produce the corresponding electronic files at the 

individual custodian level. If a dispute arises and cannot be resolved through 

the meet-and-confer process, any Party may seek relief from the Court. 

In order to reduce the burden of searching for, reviewing, and producing 

relevant and responsive electronically-stored information, the Parties agree 

to attempt to locate such information through the use of custodians and 

search terms, provided, however, that this process shall not alleviate either 

party of its burden to reasonably locate and produce (among other things) 

relevant and responsive electronically-stored information that, inter alia, a 

party knows about or should know about through the use of reasonable 

diligence in discovery.

ii. Protocol For Agreeing on Use of Search Filters. The Parties agree that the 

application of search terms is an appropriate step to reasonably identify 

potentially responsive Documents or to cull ESI once the material is 

collected from the appropriate data source. However, this shall in no way 

displace the obligation of a party to locate responsive data that can 

reasonably be located without the use of search terms (for example, if a 

custodian has a folder whose subject is likely to pertain to the disputed 

issues between the parties, the party may need to review the entire folder). 

Each Party may take reasonable steps to develop search terms to identify 

potentially responsive Documents including undertaking reasonable steps 

to test and validate the recall (how many Documents determined to be 

responsive that were actually identified using search terms) and precision 

(how precise the search terms are, measuring how many non-relevant 

Documents were also search term hits, or how many non-relevant 

Documents one would have to review to find the relevant Documents in the 

Document universe) of the terms.

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 82 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2024 Page 11 of 22
12

Simultaneously with the service of its initial responses and objections to 

requests for production, a Party shall expeditiously propose a list search 

terms. The other Party may propose additional search terms, and the Parties 

shall meet and confer in an effort to agree upon search terms to be run 

against potentially responsive ESI. As part of the meet and confer process, 

a Producing Party may propose adjustments to search terms and/or 

custodians to whom they are applied based on the number of hits returned.

The Parties shall continue to confer in good faith regarding the scope and 

content of the search terms and custodians. Additional search terms may be 

added as needed based on continuing negotiations over the discovery 

requests or based on the review of Documents produced throughout 

discovery. The Parties acknowledge that search terms may not be 

appropriate for searching non-custodial information sources and will use 

appropriate alternative means to search those sources. If a dispute arises and 

cannot be resolved through the meet-and-confer process, any Party may 

seek relief from the Court.

iii. Temporal Scope. Simultaneously with the service of its initial responses and 

objections to requests for production, a Party shall propose a temporal scope 

of discovery. The other Party may provide a responsive proposal, and the 

Parties shall expeditiously meet and confer in an effort to agree upon the 

appropriate temporal scope of discovery, which scope may differ depending 

upon the specific request or type of ESI sought. If a dispute arises and 

cannot be resolved through the meet-and-confer process, any Party may 

seek relief from the Court.

iv. Search Term Testing and Validation. While there are potentially numerous 

ways to reasonably test and validate search terms, a Producing Party may 

test the efficacy of proposed search terms by assessing hit reports and/or by 

sampling individual query results or cumulative results, and during the meet 

and confer process may support the exclusion of disputed search terms by 

reference to such statistical hit reporting and/or intelligence garnered from 

such sampling, provided, however, that if a Producing Party relies upon 

such statistical hit reporting and/or intelligence for the exclusion of certain 

search terms it must first provide to the Requesting Party the underlying "hit 

rate data" (i.e., total number of Documents searched, number of aggregate 

hits, number of unique hits, etc.) relating to such search terms.

v. Search and Production. The fact that ESI may have been retrieved or 

identified by application of search terms shall not prevent any Party from 

withholding from production such ESI for privilege or other permissible 

objection. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent any Party identifies 

responsive ESI not identified by the use of search terms or filters, all such 

non-privileged ESI must be produced, subject to the Parties' objections to 

discovery requests and privileged ESI will be logged to the extent required 

by this agreement.

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 82 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2024 Page 12 of 22
13

e. Use of Technology-Assisted Review

i. The Parties agree to meet and confer at a later date about the appropriateness 

of any technology-assisted review, to the extent that any party proposes the 

use of such technology. The Parties reserve the right to seek modification 

of this protocol to the extent that they reach an agreement concerning 

technology-assisted review. Each Party also reserves the right to seek relief 

from the Court, to the extent that it is unable to amicably resolve any 

disputes about the use or nonuse of technology-assisted review.

f. Structured Data Format 

i. To the extent a response to discovery requires production of discoverable 

electronic information contained in a database and it cannot reasonably be 

produced in either Excel or .CSV format, in advance of producing such 

information, the Parties agree to meet and confer regarding the format of 

the production (e.g., commercial database, or some other agreed-upon 

format). If the structured data exists in a proprietary database format, and 

an exportable electronic file cannot be created in a reasonably usable 

format, then the Parties will meet and confer regarding utilizing the 

proprietary software to generate the production in an alternative format or 

other options.

g. Confidentiality of Produced ESI 

i. TIFF Format. For ESI produced in TIFF format which is subject to a claim 

that it is protected from disclosure under any protective or confidentiality 

order, or any agreement entered into or order issued in this matter, shall be 

endorsed on each page of the Document with “CONFIDENTIAL” or 

“HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY.” The Party 

shall also include in the Load File (.DAT) a designation that the 

Document is protected and the level of protection as outlined in the 

metadata fields in Exhibit A.

ii. Native Format. For ESI produced in Native Format which is subject to a 

claim that it is protected from disclosure under any protective or 

confidentiality order, or any agreement entered into or order issued in this 

matter, the designation of “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY” may be included in the 

filename and shall also be endorsed on the TIFF placeholder or storage 

device (e.g., CD, USB, hard drive) containing the native data. The Party 

shall also include in the Load File (.DAT) a designation that the Document

is protected and the level of protection as outlined in the metadata fields 

in Exhibit A.

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 82 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2024 Page 13 of 22
14

III. CLAWBACK

a. Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502(d), the production of a privileged or work-productprotected document is not a waiver of privilege or protection from discovery in this 

case or in any other federal or state proceeding. 

b. A producing party may assert privilege or protection over produced documents at 

any time by notifying the receiving party in writing of the assertion of privilege or 

protection. After being notified, a party must promptly return or destroy the 

specified information and any copies it has and may not sequester, use or disclose 

the information until the claim is resolved. This includes a restriction against 

presenting the information to the court for a determination of the claim. Information 

that contains attorney-client privilege or attorney work product shall be returned 

immediately if requested.

c. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted to require disclosure of irrelevant 

information or relevant information protected by the attorney-client privilege, 

work-product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or immunity. The parties 

do not waive any objections to the production, discoverability, admissibility, or 

confidentiality of documents and ESI.

IV. PRIVILEGE AND REDACTION LOGS

a. Privilege Log. Each Document withheld on account of an asserted attorney-client 

privilege or attorney work product shall be identified in a privilege log pursuant to 

Rule 26(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

i. As threading may be used by the Parties such that only Inclusive emails are 

produced, only the top-level email must be logged.

ii. The Party withholding or redacting any responsive document on the 

grounds of any privilege or immunity claim shall provide to the other Party 

a Privilege Log which shall contain the following information for each 

document withheld:

1. Privilege Log Entry Number;

2. the date of the email, or if an attachment, the date of the parent 

email;

3. the identity of person(s) who sent, authored, signed or otherwise 

prepared the document, and if an email, including their email 

address (e.g., Jane Doe (jdoe@gmail.com);

4. the identity of all persons designated as recipients, CCs, or BCCs; 

5. a description of the contents of the document that, without revealing 

information that is allegedly privileged or protected, is sufficient to 

understand the subject matter of the document and the basis of the 

claim of privilege or immunity; and

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 82 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2024 Page 14 of 22
15

6. the type or nature of the privilege asserted (e.g., attorney-client, 

work product, common interest, etc.).

iii. Privilege logs shall be produced no later than 3 weeks after the substantial 

completion date.

b. Redaction Log.

i. So long as the redaction language on the image comports with Paragraph 

II.c.xvi and the document’s metadata is fully produced (except for any 

metadata agreed to be withheld as noted herein), a redaction log for 

privilege redactions shall not be required.

ii. On a document-by-document basis, a Party may request additional 

information about a privilege redaction. To avoid confusion, any privilege 

redactions shall not be made with a black box.

iii. Redactions for personally-identifiable information shall be made with a 

black box and need not be logged.

V. MISCELLANEOUS 

a. Variance. Any practice or procedure set forth herein may be varied by agreement 

of the Parties without order of this Court. Failure of the Parties to agree on any 

modifications for good cause shown may be raised with the Court as necessary and 

in accordance with all applicable rules, including the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure. 

VI. OBJECTIONS

a. General. The Parties do not waive any objections to the relevance, responsiveness,

production, discoverability, possession, custody, control, or confidentiality, 

including (without limitation) objections regarding the burden, overbreadth, or 

relevance of Document requests. Nothing in this Agreement shall be interpreted to 

require the disclosure of irrelevant information, relevant information that is overly 

burdensome, or relevant information protected by the attorney-client privilege, 

work product immunity, or any other applicable privilege or immunity or is 

otherwise not discoverable.

b. No Waiver of Rights Regarding Review. By entering this Joint Stipulation, no Party 

has released or given up its right to review its Documents for privilege or any other 

reason (including to identify non-responsive Documents) and the existence of this 

Joint Stipulation cannot be used to compel a Party to produce Documents without 

review. Moreover, this Joint Stipulation does not mean that the cost of review 

should not be considered in whether any particular discovery is disproportionate 

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 82 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2024 Page 15 of 22
16

(i.e., that the marginal benefit of the discovery is not as great as the marginal cost 

of said discovery including review).

c. Disputes. The Parties shall meet and confer in an attempt to resolve any objections.

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 82 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2024 Page 16 of 22
17

DATED: March 4, 2024

Respectfully submitted,

MARCUS NEIMAN RASHBAUM & 

PINEIRO LLP

By: /s/ Jason L. Mays

Jeffrey E. Marcus, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 310890

jmarcus@mnrlawfirm.com

Jason L. Mays, Esq.

Florida Bar No. 106495

jmays@mnrlawfirm.com

2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2530

Miami, Florida 33131

Tel: (305) 400-4262

Fax: (954) 688-2492

WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP

Sameer Advani (pro hac vice)

Brittany M. Wagonheim (pro hac vice)

787 Seventh Avenue

New York, NY 10019

Telephone: (212) 728-8000

sadvani@willkie.com

bwagonheim@willkie.com

Craig C. Martin (pro hac vice)

Aaron J. Hersh (pro hac vice)

300 N. LaSalle Drive

Chicago, IL 60654

Telephone: (312) 728-9000

cmartin@willkie.com 

ahersh@willkie.com

Attorneys for Defendant William “Beau” 

Wrigley, Jr. 

ZEBERSKY PAYNE SHAW LEWNENZ 

LLP

By: /s/ Zachary D. Ludens

Jordan Alexander Shaw (FBN 111771)

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & 

SULLIVAN LLP 

By: /s/ Jason D. Sternberg

John O’Sullivan (Fla. Bar No. 143154)

Jason D. Sternberg (Fla. Bar No. 72887)

2601 South Bayshore Drive, Suite 1550

Miami, FL 33133

Telephone: (305) 439-5008

johnosullivan@quinnemanuel.com

jasonsternberg@quinnemanuel.com

Michael B. Carlinsky (pro hac vice)

Susheel Kirpalani (pro hac vice)

Jacob J. Waldman (pro hac vice)

51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor

New York, NY 10010

Telephone: (212) 849-7000

Secondary: olgagarcia@quinnemanuel.com

Attorneys for the TradeInvest Plaintiffs 

SAUL EWING LLP

By: /s/ Hilda Piloto

Hilda Piloto

Florida Bar No. 0154120

701 Brickell Avenue, 17th Floor

Miami, FL 33131

Telephone: (305) 428-4500

hilda.piloto@saul.com 

tracy.alger@saul.com 

aida.mclaughlin@saul.com 

mia-ctdocs@saul.com 

Casey Grabenstein, Esq. (pro hac vice)

161 North Clark Street, Suite 4200

Chicago, IL 60601

Telephone: (312) 876-7810

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 82 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2024 Page 17 of 22
18

jshaw@zpllp.com

Zachary Dean Ludens (FBN 111620)

zludens@zpllp.com

Lauren Nicole Palen (FBN 1038877)

lpalen@zpllp.com

110 Southeast 6th Street

Suite 2900

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

954-595-6075

Attorneys for Defendant James Holmes

casey.grabenstein@saul.com 

John F. Stoviak, Esq. (pro hac vice)

1200 Liberty Ridge Drive, Suite 200

Wayne, PA 19087

Telephone: (610) 251-5056

john.stoviak@saul.com 

Kayleigh T. Keilty, Esq. (pro hac vice)

1001 Fleet Street

Baltimore, MD 21201

Telephone: (410) 332-8600

kayleigh.keilty@saul.com 

Attorneys for Defendants SH Parent Inc. d/b/a 

Parallel, Surterra Holdings Inc., and James 

Whitcomb

NASON YEAGER GERSON HARRIS & FUMERO, P.A. 

By: /s/ Gary A. Woodfield

Gary A. Woodfield 

Florida Bar No. 563102

3001 PGA Blvd., Suite 305 

Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410 

(561) 686-3307 

gwoodfield@nasonyeager.com 

MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY AND POPEO, P.C. 

Kaitlyn A. Crowe (pro hac vice) 

919 Third Avenue

New York, NY 10022

Phone: 212.935.3000

Fax: 212.983.3115

kacrowe@mintz.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Legacy Knight Strategic Opportunities Fund – Parallel Series 

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 82 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2024 Page 18 of 22
19

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this March 4, 2024, the foregoing was filed with the Court via the 

Court’s CM/ECF system on the dockets for Case No. 22-80360 and Case No. 22-81569, which 

generated notices of electronic filing on all counsel of record.

/s/ Jason L. Mays

Jason L. Mays

Florida Bar No. 106495 

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 82 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2024 Page 19 of 22
20

EXHIBIT A

I. PRODUCTION FIELDS

The following metadata fields will be provided for all Documents in the production, to the 

extent the metadata is extractable during processing. Specific metadata associated with redacted 

Documents may be withheld from the production as outlined in Paragraph II.C.xv.

FIELD NAME DESCRIPTION

Begin Bates Beginning Bates number

End Bates Ending Bates number

Begin Attachment Beginning Bates number of a family group

End Attachment Ending Bates number of a family group

Attachment Count Number of attachments to an email

Attachment Name The file name(s) of all attachments

Parent Date and Time Date and time of the parent Document; must be in the 

“MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM:SS” format. This value shall be 

populated to the full email or Document family. 

Parent ID Bates number of the parent email (populated for attachments only)

Child ID Bates number of the attachment(s) (populated for parent emails 

only)

All Custodians The original custodian, and all other custodians, separated with a 

multi-value delimiter, from whom the Document was collected and 

who possessed the Document. For Documents from centralized 

repositories where custodian name is unavailable, identifying 

source information should be provided.

Confidentiality The confidentiality designation assigned to the Document.

Redacted (yes/no) Indicating whether the file has been redacted

Subject Subject line of the email

File Name Name of the file as maintained in the ordinary course

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 82 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2024 Page 20 of 22
21

File Extension File extension

Sent Date and Time Email sent date and time; must be in the “MM/DD/YYYY 

HH:MM:SS” format.

Received Date and Time Date and time email received; must be in the “MM/DD/YYYY 

HH:MM:SS” format.

Created Date and Time Date and time file was created; must be in the “MM/DD/YYYY 

HH:MM:SS” format.

Modified Date and Time Date and time file was last modified; must be in the 

“MM/DD/YYYY HH:MM:SS” format.

Author Author of the application file

From Sender of an email

To Recipients of the email

CC CCs of the email

BCC BCCs of the email

File Type Email, spreadsheet, word processing document, etc.

All File Paths Location of the file or email as it is maintained in the ordinary 

course, including file paths for duplicate documents.

Record Type Type of file (email, attachment, eFile)

Email Message ID Unique identifier for email

Email Conversation Index Indicating relative position of email within the conversation thread

Hidden 

Contents/Embedded

Objects (yes/no)

Indicating whether file has hidden contents or embedded objects

Native Link Native link for file

MD5 Hash Value commonly used to deduplicate files or identify duplicates

Time Zone Offset UTC-00:00

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 82 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2024 Page 21 of 22
22

Metadata will be provided in a flat file (.TXT or .DAT). Each line will begin with the fields 

Begin Bates and End Bates, using default Concordance delimiters, as follows:

• Field delimiter—ASCII character 20 (¶)

• Text delimiter—ASCII character 254 (þ)

• Newline indicator—ASCII character 174 (®)

Case 9:22-cv-81569-AMC Document 82 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/04/2024 Page 22 of 22