Adaptix, Inc. v. HTC Corporation et al, No. 5:2014cv02359 - Document 55 (N.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED ESI ORDER re (97 in 5:14-cv-02895-PSG), (54 in 5:14-cv-02359-PSG), (62 in 5:14-cv-02360-PSG), (97 in 5:14-cv-02894-PSG) Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on November 7, 2014 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2014)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Adaptix, Inc. v. HTC Corporation et al Doc. 55 1 [Counsel Listed on Signature Block] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION __________________________________ ADAPTIX, INC., ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, ) INC., and AT&T MOBILITY LLC, ) Defendants. ) __________________________________ ) ADAPTIX, INC., ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, ) INC., and CELLCO PARTNERSHIP ) d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS, ) Defendants. ) __________________________________ ) ADAPTIX, INC., ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) KYOCERA COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ) and SPRINT SPECTRUM LP, ) Defendants. ) __________________________________ ) ADAPTIX, INC., ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) KYOCERA COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ) and CELLCO PARTNERSHIP ) d/b/a/ VERIZON WIRELESS, ) Defendants. ) __________________________________ ) Case No.: 5:14-cv-02359-PSG JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Case No.: 5:14-cv-02360-PSG JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Case No.: 5:14-02894-PSG JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Case No.: 5:14-02895-PSG JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Case Nos. 5:14-cv-02359, -02360, -02894, -02895 [PROPOSED] ESI ORDER Dockets.Justia.com 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING E-DISCOVERY IN PATENT CASES 2 Upon the stipulation of the parties, the Court ORDERS as follows: 3 1. This order supplements all other discovery rules and orders. It streamlines 4 Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”) production to promote a “just, speedy, and inexpensive 5 determination” of this action, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1. 6 2. This order may be modified in the court’s discretion or by agreement of the parties. 7 If the parties cannot resolve their disagreements regarding any such modifications, the parties shall 8 submit their competing proposals and a summary of their dispute. 9 3. A party’s meaningful compliance with this order and efforts to promote efficiency 10 and reduce costs will be considered in cost-shifting determinations. 11 4. Absent a showing of good cause, general ESI production requests under Federal 12 Rules of Civil Procedure 34 and 45, or compliance with a mandatory disclosure requirement of 13 this Court, shall not include metadata. However, fields showing the date and time that the 14 document was sent and received, as well as the complete distribution list, shall generally be 15 included in the production if such fields exist. 16 5. Absent agreement of the parties or further order of this court, the following 17 parameters shall apply to ESI production: 18 A. General Document Image Format. Each electronic document shall be produced 19 in Portable Document Format (“PDF”) or single-page Tagged Image File Format 20 (“TIFF”) format. Each hard copy document shall be scanned and produced in PDF 21 or single-page TIFF format. TIFF files shall be single page and shall be named 22 with a unique production number followed by the appropriate file extension. PDF 23 files shall be named with a unique production number followed by the appropriate 24 file extension. Concordance load files with opticon shall be provided to indicate 25 the location and unitization of the PDF or TIFF files. If a document is more than 26 one page, the unitization of the document and any attachments and/or affixed notes 27 shall be maintained as they existed in the original document. 28 B. Text-Searchable Documents. No party has an obligation to make its production -2- Case Nos. 5:14-cv-02359, -02360, -02894, -02895 [PROPOSED] ESI ORDER 1 text-searchable; however, if a party’s documents already exist in text-searchable 2 format independent of this litigation, or are converted to text-searchable format for 3 use in this litigation, including for use by the producing party’s counsel, then such 4 documents shall be produced in the same text-searchable format at no cost to the 5 receiving party. A party may produce extracted-text text files to correspond with 6 Concordance load files and the produced PDF or TIFF files in lieu of producing 7 text-searchable documents. 8 C. 9 10 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 11 above may make a reasonable request to receive the document in its native format, 12 and upon receipt of such a request, the producing party shall produce the document 13 in its native format. A Party may produce a document only in its native format, to 14 the extent such production of the native format document will not hamper the other 15 Party’s review and is in compliance with the other requirements in this Order. 16 E. No Backup Restoration Required. Absent a showing of good cause, no party 17 need restore any form of media upon which backup data is maintained in a party’s 18 normal or allowed processes, including but not limited to backup tapes, disks, 19 SAN, and other forms of media, to comply with its discovery obligations in the 20 present case. 21 F. Voicemail, Instant Messages, and Mobile Devices. Absent a showing of good 22 cause, voicemails, instant messages, PDAs and mobile phones are deemed not 23 reasonably accessible and need not be collected and preserved. 24 G. Limited Number of ESI Custodians. Each Party shall identify ESI custodians 25 most likely to have discoverable information in their possession, custody, or control 26 in view of the pleaded claims and defenses, infringement contentions and 27 accompanying documents pursuant to P.R. 3-1 and 3-2, invalidity contentions and 28 accompanying documents pursuant to P.R. 3-3 and 3-4, and preliminary -3- Case Nos. 5:14-cv-02359, -02360, -02894, -02895 [PROPOSED] ESI ORDER 1 information relevant to damages. Each party1 shall specifically identify five (5) ESI 2 custodians. These lists are subject to revision or supplementation. The parties may 3 jointly agree to modify this limit without the court’s leave. The court shall consider 4 contested requests for additional or fewer custodians per producing party, upon 5 showing a distinct need based on the size, complexity, and issues of this specific 6 case. The specific identification of ESI custodians shall include the name and title 7 of the custodian, the custodian’s role in the instant dispute, the subject matter of the 8 information likely to be in the custodian’s possession, and a short description of 9 why the custodian is believed to be significant. An “ESI custodian,” as used herein, 10 does not include common repositories where ESI is stored, such as, without 11 limitation, technical document repositories, license agreement repositories, source 12 code repositories, network drives that are shared by numerous individuals, financial 13 databases, etc. This Stipulation has no effect on the Parties’ document production 14 obligations, if any, regarding such common repositories. For the avoidance of 15 doubt, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, a Party need not choose 16 as an “ESI custodian” a repository where relevant and discoverable materials are 17 stored in order for those materials to be discoverable. 18 6. General ESI production requests under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 34 and 45, 19 or compliance with a mandatory disclosure order of this court, shall not include e-mail or other 20 forms of electronic correspondence (collectively “e-mail”). To obtain e-mail parties must 21 propound specific e-mail production requests. 22 7. E-mail production requests shall be phased to occur timely after the parties have 23 exchanged initial disclosures, a specific listing of likely e-mail custodians, a specific identification 24 25 26 27 28 1 For purposes of this Order, any defendants in the above-captioned actions who are related corporate entities (e.g., parent and subsidiary) count as one party. -4- Case Nos. 5:14-cv-02359, -02360, -02894, -02895 [PROPOSED] ESI ORDER 1 of the most significant listed e-mail custodians in view of the pleaded claims and defenses,2 2 infringement contentions and accompanying documents pursuant to P.R. 3-1 and 3-2, invalidity 3 contentions and accompanying documents pursuant to P.R. 3-3 and 3-4, and preliminary 4 information relevant to damages. The exchange of this information shall occur at the time 5 required under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rules, or by order of the court. 6 8. E-mail production requests shall identify the custodian, search terms, and time 7 frame. The parties shall cooperate to identify the proper custodians, proper search terms, and 8 proper time frame. Each requesting party shall limit its e-mail production requests to a total of 9 five custodians per producing party. The parties may jointly agree to modify this limit without the 10 court’s leave. The court shall consider contested requests for additional or fewer custodians per 11 producing party, upon showing a distinct need based on the size, complexity, and issues of this 12 specific case. 13 9. Each requesting party shall limit its e-mail production requests to a total of seven 14 search terms per custodian per party. The parties may jointly agree to modify this limit without 15 the court’s leave. The court shall consider contested requests for additional or fewer search terms 16 per custodian, upon showing a distinct need based on the size, complexity, and issues of this 17 specific case. The search terms shall be narrowly tailored to particular issues. Indiscriminate 18 terms, such as the producing company’s name or its product name, are inappropriate unless 19 combined with narrowing search criteria that sufficiently reduce the risk of overproduction. A 20 conjunctive combination of multiple words or phrases (e.g., “computer” and “system”) narrows 21 the search and shall count as a single search term. A disjunctive combination of multiple words or 22 phrases (e.g., “computer” or “system”) broadens the search, and thus each word or phrase shall 23 count as a separate search term unless they are variants of the same word. Use of narrowing 24 search criteria (e.g., “and,” “but not,” “w/x”) is encouraged to limit the production and shall be 25 considered when determining whether to shift costs for disproportionate discovery. 26 27 28 2 A “specific identification” requires a short description of why the custodian is believed to be significant. -5- Case Nos. 5:14-cv-02359, -02360, -02894, -02895 [PROPOSED] ESI ORDER 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Dated: November 7, 2014 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Paul J. Hayes Paul J. Hayes (pro hac vice) Kevin Gannon (pro hac vice) Steven E. Lipman (pro hac vice) James J. Foster (pro hac vice) HAYES MESSINA GILMAN & HAYES LLC 200 State Street, 6th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 345-6900 Facsimile: (617) 443-1999 Email: phayes@hayesmessina.com Email: kgannon@hayesmessina.com Email: slipman@hayesmessina.com Email: jfoster@hayesmessina.com Christopher D. Banys Richard C Lin Jennifer L. Gilbert BANYS, P.C. 1032 Elwell Court, Suite 100 Palo Alto, CA 04303 Telephone: (650) 308-8505 Facsimile: (650) 353-2202 Email: cdb@banyspc.com Email: rcl@banyspc.com Email: jlg@banyspc.com Attorneys for Plaintiff ADAPTIX, INC. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -7- Case Nos. 5:14-cv-02359, -02360, -02894, -02895 [PROPOSED] ESI ORDER 1 Dated: November 7, 2014 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 /s/ David Eiseman David Eiseman (Bar No. 114758) QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 Email: davideiseman@quinnemanuel.com Ryan S. Goldstein (Bar No. 208444) QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP NBF Hibiya Building, 25F 1-1-7, Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku Tokyo 100-0011, Japan Telephone: +81 3 5510 1711 Facsimile: +81 3 5510 1712 Email: ryangoldstein@quinnemanuel.com Attorneys for Defendant KYOCERA COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 14 15 Dated: November 7, 2014 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 /s/ Mark W. McGrory Mark W. McGrory (pro hac vice) Lawrence A. Rouse (pro hac vice) ROUSE HENDRICKS GERMAN MAY PC 1201 Walnut, 20th Floor Kansas City, MO 64106 Telephone: (650) 858-6000 Facsimile: (650) 858-6100 MarkM@rhgm.com LarryR@rhgm.com Nathaniel Bruno SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 434-9100 Facsimile: (415) 434-3947 nbruno@sheppardmullin.com Attorneys for Defendant SPRINT SPECTRUM L.P. 28 -8- Case Nos. 5:14-cv-02359, -02360, -02894, -02895 [PROPOSED] ESI ORDER 1 Dated: November 7, 2014 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 /s/ Geoffrey M. Godfrey Mark D. Flanagan (SBN 130303) mark.flanagan@wilmerhale.com Robert M. Galvin (SBN 171508) robert.galvin@wilmerhale.com Geoffrey M. Godfrey (SBN 228735) geoff.godfrey@wilmerhale.com Cortney C. Hoecherl (SBN 245005) cortney.hoecherl@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 858-6000 Facsimile: (650) 858-6100 Attorneys for Defendant CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS 13 14 15 ATTESTATION OF CONCURRENCE IN FILING Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), Iman Lordgooei attests that concurrence in the 16 filing of this document has been obtained from each of the Signatories listed above. 17 18 /s/ Iman Lordgooei Iman Lordgooei 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -9- Case Nos. 5:14-cv-02359, -02360, -02894, -02895 [PROPOSED] ESI ORDER
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
