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 IN COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY PLAN ORDER 

LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD 

Lynn Hubbard III (SBN 69773) 

Scottlynn J Hubbard IV (SBN 212970) 

12 Williamsburg Lane 

Chico, California 95926 

Telephone: (530) 895-3252 

Facsimile: (530) 894-8244 

Attorneys for plaintiffs James DeFazio, 

Theresa Beetham, Brenda Dimaro, 

DeLane Humphries, Hallie Lavick, 

Michael McNair, Sonya Pace, Judy Seay, 

Nancy Russell Stanton, and Cindy Wirth

PORTER│SCOTT 

A Professional Corporation 

Russell G. Porter (SBN 041020) 

Martin N. Jensen (SBN 232231) 

350 University Avenue, Suite 200 

Sacramento, California 95825 

Telephone: (916) 929-1481 

Facsimile: (916) 927-3706 

Attorneys for plaintiff Kathleen Ellis

WILCOXEN, CALLAHAN, MONTGOMERY 

& DEACON 

Daniel E. Wilcoxen (SBN 054805) 

2114 K Street 

Sacramento, California 95816 

Telephone: (916) 442-2777 

Facsimile: (916) 442-4118 

Attorneys for plaintiff Kathleen Ellis 

WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD 

 & BIRNEY LLP 

William A. Gould (SBN 035446) 

Daniel L. Baxter (SBN 203862) 

400 Capitol Mall, Twenty-Second Floor 

Sacramento, California 95814 

Telephone: (916) 441-2430 

Facsimile: (916) 442-6664 

Attorneys for defendants The Firm of John 

Dickinson Schneider, Inc., Hollister 

Incorporated, Samuel P. Brilliant, Donald. K. 

Groneberg, Charles H. Gunderson, Alan F. 

Herbert, James A. Karlovsky, Lori Kelleher, 

James J. McCormack, Charles C. 

Schellentrager, Howard I. Simon and 

Richard T. Zwirner

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMES P. DeFAZIO, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

HOLLISTER, INC.; et. al., 

Defendants. 

Case No.: CIV.S-04-1358 WBS GGH 

[Consolidated Master Case Number] 

STIPULATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH 

DISCOVERY PLAN ORDER

Judge William B. Shubb 

Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows 

Complaint 

Filed: July 15, 2004 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 331 Filed 03/25/08 Page 1 of 6
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 IN COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY PLAN ORDER 

KATHLEEN ELLIS, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

HOLLISTER INCORPORATED et al., 

Defendants. 

Complaint 

Filed: March 22, 2005 

BRENDA DIMARO and 

HOLLIE LAVICK, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

HOLLISTER INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendants. 

Complaint 

Filed: August 25, 2005 

The parties, by their undersigned counsel, hereby submit this Stipulation in 

compliance with the Discovery Plan Order dated February 27, 2008 entered by 

Magistrate Judge Hollows in the above-captioned consolidated actions (Dkt. No. 

325). The parties have agreed as follows: 

1. Documents are to be produced in their original storage methodology 

(whether paper or electronic format), unless the propounding party requests 

production in a different format. 

2. Notwithstanding ¶1, above, to the extent that an electronic document 

contains privileged information (including metadata), the document may then be 

produced in hard copy form or as a PDF file. The existence of an electronic copy of 

such a document containing privileged information shall be identified on a privilege 

log. 

3. Each party will produce its documents with a label identifying the party 

that is producing each document (e.g., “H” for Hollister, “KE” for Kathleen Ellis, 

etc.). Counsel for the DeFazio/Dimaro plaintiffs has advised counsel for the other 

parties that he is in possession of various documents for which the original source 

of receipt of those documents is no longer ascertainable. Such documents will be 

produced with a generic designation that they are being produced by 

DeFazio/Dimaro plaintiffs. 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 331 Filed 03/25/08 Page 2 of 6
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 IN COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY PLAN ORDER 

4. If the same document is in the possession of multiple parties (e.g., if the 

same document is in the possession of more than one plaintiff, or in the possession 

of multiple defendants), all such documents will be produced with an identification 

of the source of each such document. Although this procedure may result in receipt 

of multiple copies of the same document, the parties have agreed that this 

procedure will be beneficial in avoiding disputes concerning which documents were 

produced by which parties. 

5. The obligation to produce “documents” extends to any electronically 

stored information that is otherwise required to be produced in this action pursuant 

to the applicable provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

6. After defendants make the document production that, under the 

Discovery Plan Order, is due on or before April 11, 2008, the parties will again meet 

and confer concerning the issue of electronic discovery requirements in this action. 

a. Ellis and defendants are amenable to deferring further discussion 

regarding discovery of electronic discovery until such time as plaintiffs have 

received and reviewed the documents that are to be produced by defendants 

on April 11, 2008. 

b. It is the position of the DeFazio/Dimaro plaintiffs that the parties 

are presently obligated to provide information regarding electronically stored 

information as part of the parties’ obligations under Rule 26(f) and Rule 26(g) 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The DeFazio/Dimaro plaintiffs have 

communicated the information they seek regarding defendants’ computer 

systems in letters dated March 12, 2008 and March 18, 2008. Those letters 

are attached as Exhibits A and B hereto. Counsel for defendant Hollister 

Incorporated is presenting these requests to Hollister and will advise the other 

counsel in writing of Hollister’s position concerning plaintiffs’ request for 

information.

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 331 Filed 03/25/08 Page 3 of 6
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 IN COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY PLAN ORDER 

c. Defendants disagree with the contention of the DeFazio/Dimaro 

plaintiffs that, at this juncture, information regarding their computer systems 

is, in and of itself, an appropriate subject upon which discovery is to be 

conducted. Instead, defendants’ position is that to the extent plaintiffs’ 

discovery requests seek properly-discoverable materials that are stored 

electronically, it is defendants’ obligation to produce those materials unless (i) 

such production would be unduly burdensome; or (ii) the requested 

electronically stored materials are no longer accessible due to routine 

maintenance of the information storage system. Accordingly, defendants 

maintain that further discussion regarding discovery of electronically stored 

information should occur in the context of an overall discussion of the any 

additional document production that plaintiffs may seek once plaintiffs have 

received the documents that defendants will produce by April 11, 2008. In 

that regard, defendants note that the comment to Rule 26(b)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P., 

states: 

The volume of -- and the ability to search -- much electronically stored 

information means that in many cases the responding party will be able 

to produce information from reasonably accessible sources that will 

fully satisfy the parties’ discovery needs. In many circumstances the 

requesting party should obtain and evaluate the information from such 

sources before insisting that the responding party search and produce 

information contained on sources that are not reasonably accessible. 

d. The DeFazio/Dimaro plaintiffs and defendants have “agreed to 

disagree” regarding this issue (pending further communications).

Dated: March 21, 2008 LAW OFFICES OF LYNN HUBBARD 

/s/ Scott Hubbard IV 

SCOTT HUBBARD IV 

Attorney for plaintiffs Jim DeFazio, Theresa Beetham, 

Brenda Dimaro, DeLane Humphries, Hallie Lavick, 

Michael McNair, Sonya Pace, Judy Seay, Nancy 

Russell Stanton, and Cindy Wirth 

// 

// 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 331 Filed 03/25/08 Page 4 of 6
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 IN COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY PLAN ORDER 

PORTER│SCOTT A Professional Corporation 

/s/ Martin N. Jensen 

MARTIN N. JENSEN 

Attorney for plaintiff Kathleen Ellis 

WILCOXEN, CALLAHAN, MONTGOMERY & DEACON 

/s/ Daniel E. Wilcoxen 

DANIEL E. WILCOXEN 

Attorney for plaintiff Kathleen Ellis 

ADDUCCI, DORF, LEHNER, MITCHELL & 

BLANKENSHIP, P.C. 

/s/ James D. Adducci 

JAMES D. ADDUCCI 

Attorneys for defendants Samuel P. Brilliant, Donald 

K. Groneberg, Charles H. Gunderson, James A. 

Karlovsky, Lori Kelleher, James J. McCormack, 

Charles C. Schellentrager, Howard I. Simon and 

Richard T. Zwirner 

ADDUCCI, DORF, LEHNER, MITCHELL 

 & BLANKENSHIP, P.C. 

JAMES D. ADDUCCI, ESQ. (Admitted pro hac vice) 

MARSHALL L. BLANKENSHIP, ESQ. (Admitted pro hac vice) 

150 North Michigan Avenue 

Suite 2130 

Chicago, Illinois 60601-7524 

Tel: (312) 781-2800 

Fax: (312) 781-2811 

SCHUYLER ROCHE, P.C. 

/s/ L. Andrew Brehm 

L. ANDREW BREHM 

Attorneys for defendants The Firm of John Dickinson 

Schneider, Inc., Hollister Incorporated, Alan F. 

Herbert. Richard I. Fremgen 

SCHUYLER ROCHE, P.C. 

MICHAEL B. ROCHE, ESQ. (Admitted pro hac vice) 

L. ANDREW BREHM, ESQ. (Admitted pro hac vice) 

Suite 3800, One Prudential Plaza 

130 East Randolph Street 

Chicago, Illinois 60601 

Tel: (312) 565-2400 

Fax: (312) 565-8300 

// 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 331 Filed 03/25/08 Page 5 of 6
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 IN COMPLIANCE WITH DISCOVERY PLAN ORDER 

Co-Counsel for All Defendants: 

WILKE, FLEURY, HOFFELT, GOULD & BIRNEY LLP 

WILLIAM A. GOULD, ESQ. (SBN 035446) 

DANIEL L. BAXTER, ESQ. (SBN 203862) 

400 Capitol Mall, Twenty-Second Floor 

Sacramento, California 95814 

Telephone: (916) 441-2430 

Facsimile: (916) 442-6664 

March 25, 2008 The foregoing Stipulation has been 

received and accepted by the Court, and 

the parties are hereby ordered to conduct 

discovery in the manner described in ¶¶1 

through 5 of the foregoing Stipulation 

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows 

__________________________________________ 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Defazio.dscyplan 

Case 2:04-cv-01358-WBS-GGH Document 331 Filed 03/25/08 Page 6 of 6