1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION 

MYCHOICE, LLC 

 v. 

TAIV, INC.

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

 Case No. 2:23-CV-0507-JRG-RSP 

ORDER REGARDING E-DISCOVERY 

The Court ORDERS as follows: 

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. 

2. This order may be modified in the court’s discretion or by agreement of the parties. The 

parties shall jointly submit any proposed modifications within 30 days after the Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 16 conference. If the parties cannot resolve their disagreements regarding these 

modifications, the parties shall submit their competing proposals and a summary of their dispute. 

3. A party’s meaningful compliance with this order and efforts to promote efficiency and 

reduce costs will be considered in cost-shifting determinations. 

4. Absent a showing of good cause, general ESI production requests under Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure 34 and 45, or 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, shall generally be included in the production 

if such fields exist. 

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

shall apply to ESI production: 

Case 2:23-cv-00507-JRG-RSP Document 27-1 Filed 06/12/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 526
2 

A. General Document Image Format. Each electronic document shall be produced in 

single-page Tagged Image File Format (“TIFF”) format. TIFF files shall be single page and 

shall be named with a 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.

B. Text-Searchable Documents. 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. Footer. Each document image shall contain a footer with a sequentially ascending 

production number.

D. Native Files. A party that receives a document produced in a format specified above 

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.

E. No Backup Restoration Required. 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. 

F. Voicemail and Mobile Devices. Absent a showing of good cause, voicemails, 

PDAs and mobile phones are deemed not reasonably accessible and need not be collected 

and preserved. 

Case 2:23-cv-00507-JRG-RSP Document 27-1 Filed 06/12/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 527
3 

6. General ESI production requests under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 34 and 45, or 

compliance with a mandatory disclosure order of this court, shall not include e-mail or other forms 

of electronic correspondence (collectively “e-mail”). To obtain e-mail parties must propound 

specific e-mail production requests. 

7. E-mail production requests shall be phased to occur timely after the parties have exchanged 

initial disclosures, a specific listing of likely e-mail custodians, a specific identification of the fifteen 

most significant listed e-mail custodians in view of the pleaded claims and defenses,1 infringement 

contentions and accompanying documents pursuant to P.R. 3-1 and 3-2, invalidity contentions and 

accompanying documents pursuant to P.R. 3-3 and 3-4, and preliminary information relevant to 

damages. The exchange of this information shall occur at the time required under the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure, Local Rules, or by order of the court. Each requesting party may also propound up to 

five written discovery requests and take one deposition per producing party to identify the proper 

custodians, proper search terms, and proper time frame for e-mail production requests. The court may 

allow additional discovery upon a showing of good cause. 

8. E-mail 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 time frame. 

Each requesting party shall limit its e-mail production requests to a total of eight 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 or fewer custodians per 

producing party, upon showing a distinct need based on the size, complexity, and issues of this specific 

case. 

1 A “specific identification” requires a short description of why the custodian is believed to be significant.

Case 2:23-cv-00507-JRG-RSP Document 27-1 Filed 06/12/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 528
4 

9. Each requesting party shall limit its e-mail 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 court shall consider contested requests for additional or fewer search terms per custodian, upon 

showing a distinct need based on the size, complexity, and issues of this specific case. 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. 

10. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d), the inadvertent production of a privileged or 

work product protected ESI is not a waiver in the pending case or in any other federal or state 

proceeding. 

11. The mere production of ESI in a litigation as part of a mass production shall not itself 

constitute a waiver for any purpose. 

12. Except as expressly stated, nothing in this order affects the parties’ discovery obligations 

under the Federal or Local Rules current as of the date of this Order. 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this __th day of __________, 2024. 

 ____________________________ 

 RODNEY GILSTRAP 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:23-cv-00507-JRG-RSP Document 27-1 Filed 06/12/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 529