Ucharima Alvarado v. Western Range Association, No. 3:2022cv00249 - Document 160 (D. Nev. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER granting ECF No. 159 Stipulation re: Electronically Stored Information for Standard Litigation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin on 11/21/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ucharima Alvarado v. Western Range Association Doc. 160 1 THIERMAN BUCK LLP LEAH L. JONES, Nev. Bar No. 13161 2 leah@thiermanbuck.com 7287 Lakeside Drive 3 Reno, Nevada 89511 Telephone: (775) 284-1500 4 Facsimile: (775) 703-5027 EDELSON PC NATASHA FERNÁNDEZ-SILBER, ESQ. (Pro Hac Vice)* nfernandezsilber@edelson.com 350 North LaSalle Drive, 14th Floor Chicago, Illinois 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 * Admitted in New York and Michigan 5 FAIRMARK PARTNERS, LLP JAMIE CROOKS, ESQ. (Pro Hac Vice) 6 jamie@fairmarklaw.com 1825 7th Street NW, #821 7 Washington, D.C. 20001 TOWARDS JUSTICE DAVID H. SELIGMAN, ESQ. (Pro Hac Vice) david@towardsjustice.org ALEXANDER HOOD, ESQ. (Pro Hac Vice) alex@towardsjustice.org PO Box 371680, PMB 44465 Denver, Colorado 80237 8 EDELSON PC YAMAN SALAHI, ESQ. (Pro Hac Vice) 9 ysalahi@edelson.com 150 California Street, 18th Floor 10 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 212-9300 11 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Class 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 DISTRICT OF NEVADA Case No.: 3:22-cv-00249-MMD-CLB 15 16 CIRILO UCHARIMA ALVARADO, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly 17 Situated, Plaintiff, 18 19 vs. 20 WESTERN RANGE ASSOCIATION, a California non-profit corporation; ELLISON 21 RANCHING COMPANY, a Nevada corporation; JOHN ESPIL SHEEP CO., INC., a 22 Nevada corporation; F.I.M. CORP., a Nevada corporation; THE LITTLE PARIS SHEEP 23 COMPANY, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; BORDA LAND & SHEEP COMPANY, 24 LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; HOLLAND RANCH, LLC, a Nevada limited 25 liability company; NEED MORE SHEEP CO., LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; and 26 FAULKNER LAND AND LIVESTOCK COMPANY, INC., an Idaho corporation. 27 Defendants. 28 STIPULATED ORDER RE: ESI 1 STIPULATED ORDER RE: DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION FOR STANDARD LITIGATION Case No. 3:22-cv-00249-MMD-CLB Dockets.Justia.com 1 1. PURPOSE 2 This Order will govern production of ESI and Documents (as defined below) by Plaintiff 3 and Defendants (the “Parties”) as a supplement to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and other 4 applicable orders and rules in the above-captioned proceeding (the “Litigation”). The Parties 5 reserve all objections under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and other applicable authority 6 concerning matters that are addressed in this Order. Nothing in this Order shall be interpreted to require disclosure of irrelevant information or 7 8 relevant information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, or any other 9 applicable privilege or immunity; however, any relevant Documents that are subject to privilege 10 shall be identified in a privilege log as described in section (8) below. The Parties do not waive 11 any objections to the discoverability, admissibility, or confidentiality of Documents or ESI. 12 Nothing in this Order shall be interpreted to supersede the provisions of orders governing 13 confidentiality, privilege, and/or protected information entered by the Court in this Litigation, 14 unless expressly provided for in such an order. 15 2. DEFINITIONS 16 “Confidentiality Designation” means the legend affixed to Documents or ESI (or the 17 accompanying Documents/response) for confidential or highly confidential information as defined 18 by, and subject to, the terms of any order concerning confidentiality agreed to and/or entered by 19 the Court in this Litigation. 20 “Document” is defined to be synonymous in meaning and equal in scope to the usage of 21 this term in Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 22 “Electronic Document or Data” means Documents or data existing in electronic form at 23 the time of collection, including but not limited to e-mail or other means of electronic 24 communications, word processing files (e.g., Microsoft Word), computer slide presentations (e.g., 25 PowerPoint or Keynote slides), spreadsheets (e.g., Excel), and image files (e.g., PDF). 26 “Electronically stored information” or “ESI,” as used herein, has the same meaning as 27 in Rules 26 and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and includes Electronic Documents or 28 Data, and computer-generated information or data, stored in or on any storage media located on STIPULATED ORDER RE: ESI 2 Case No. 3:22-cv-00249-MMD-CLB 1 computers, file servers, disks, tape, USB drives, or other real or virtualized devices or media in the 2 Parties’ possession, custody or control that is reasonably accessible, including any Cloud or off3 site storage. “Load file[s]” means an electronic file containing information identifying a set of 4 5 electronic Documents containing metadata, as well as information indicating unitization used to 6 load that production set into a document review platform. “Metadata” means: (i) information embedded in or associated with a native file that 7 8 describes the characteristics, origins, usage, and/or validity of the electronic file, which may 9 include, but is not limited to: author, custodian, subject, to, from, date, and other fields, which may 10 vary depending on the nature of the file; (ii) information generated automatically by the operation 11 of a computer or other information technology system when a native file is created, modified, 12 transmitted, deleted, or otherwise manipulated by a user of such system; (iii) information, such as 13 Bates numbers, redaction status, privilege status, or confidentiality status created during the course 14 of processing Documents or ESI for production; and (iv) information collected during the course 15 of collecting Documents or ESI, such as the name of the media device on which it was stored, or 16 the custodian or non-custodial data source from which it was collected. Nothing in this Order shall 17 require any Party to manually populate the value for any metadata field, with the exception of hard 18 copy Documents laid out in Section 6, Paragraph a. “Native Format” or “Native File” means the format of ESI in which it was generated 19 20 and/or used by the Producing Party in the usual course of its business and in its regularly conducted 21 activities. For example, the native format of an Excel workbook is an .xls or .xslx file. 22 3. PRESERVATION 23 The Parties have discussed their preservation obligations and needs and agree that 24 preservation of potentially relevant ESI will be reasonable and proportionate. Any Party that 25 imposes limitations on the materials to be preserved, whether based on date, custodian, document 26 type, etc., shall identify those limitations to the other Parties to facilitate meet-and-confer. The 27 Parties retain the right to take disputes concerning their preservation obligations to the Court if 28 disagreements cannot be resolved through the meet-and-confer process. STIPULATED ORDER RE: ESI 3 Case No. 3:22-cv-00249-MMD-CLB 1 4. LIAISON 2 Each party shall de-duplicate ESI during processing if it uses a processing tool that offers 3 de-duplication. Duplicates are defined as Documents that have identical digital fingerprints, such 4 as the Document’s MD5 or SHA1 hash value. 5 5. IDENTIFICATION AND COLLECTION OF ESI 6 a. Sources, Search Methods, and Timing. The Parties shall meet and confer in good faith 7 in an effort to agree upon: (a) sources from which Documents and ESI will be collected for review 8 and production; (b) search methods and terms or other filtering or categorization to be applied; and 9 (c) timeframes for collection and review of Documents and ESI. These discussions should begin 10 no later than promptly after service of objections to requests for production and should continue 11 as necessary to address issues that arise in the course of discovery. If good faith negotiations do 12 not resolve all ESI questions, the Parties will bring any remaining disputes to the Court for 13 resolution. b. Technologies. To the extent a Party chooses to search and review using a technology or 14 15 methodology other than search terms (including, for instance, predictive coding), that Party shall 16 disclose its intent to use that technology and the name of the review tool. In the event a Party 17 chooses to utilize predicted coding or other technology assisted review (TAR), the Parties will 18 meet and confer regarding precision and recall standards. 19 6. PRODUCTION FORMAT AND PROCESSING SPECIFICATIONS 20 a. Hard Copy Documents. Hard copy Documents shall be digitally imaged for production, 21 with each individual Document separately scanned prior to being produced. The Parties shall 22 produce all hard copy Documents as they were kept in the ordinary course of business, maintaining 23 to the greatest extent practicable their organization, folder structure, sequencing, etc. as the 24 Documents are digitally imaged for production. The Parties will provide searchable OCR (“optical 25 character recognition”) text of any paper or imaged Documents to the extent reasonably practical, 26 unless the Party reasonably determines that the utility of the OCR is outweighed by the expense. 27 In that case, the Producing Party will produce the Documents as they are kept in the ordinary 28 course of business and include in such production an explanation to the Requesting Party why STIPULATED ORDER RE: ESI 4 Case No. 3:22-cv-00249-MMD-CLB 1 production in OCR format is not feasible. No OCR or explanation for a lack of OCR shall be 2 required for hand-written Documents, or other Documents to which OCR software does not, in a 3 reasonably easy manner, convert to OCR format. The Documents should be Bates labeled and 4 produced with at least the following information: (1) FirstBates; (2) LastBates; and, if the 5 custodian is different from the Defendants in this case, (3) Custodian. Custodians should be 6 identified using the convention “last name_first name”, or, if an entity, the entity name. A 7 Producing Party shall use a uniform description of a particular custodian across productions. The 8 custodian information, if required by this Paragraph, shall be provided in an excel spreadsheet with 9 three columns: (1) FirstBates; (2) LastBates; and (3) Custodian. The Parties shall meet and confer 10 in the event there is a particularly large production of Documents. 11 b. Native Format of Electronic Documents. The Parties shall produce all spreadsheets, 12 computer slide presentations, audio files, video files, structured data, databases, and other file types 13 in the native format in which they were kept in the ordinary course of business, provided, however, 14 that the Parties will meet and confer regarding appropriate format of production for any Documents 15 that need specialized software to make accessible. When the native file is produced, the Producing 16 Party shall preserve the integrity of the electronic Document’s contents, i.e., its original formatting 17 and metadata. 18 c. Load Files. Where the Requesting Party can establish that the need, as compared to the 19 relative cost and burden on the Producing Party, justifies the creation of a Load File, then the 20 Parties will meet and confer regarding the Requesting Party’s specifications. The Parties may also 21 meet and confer regarding cost shifting of the costs of creating the Load File in order to balance 22 the relative needs and burdens related to any particular request. 23 d. Confidentiality Designation. To designate Documents or ESI as confidential under a 24 protective order that the Parties have filed with the court, the producing Party shall follow the 25 provisions set forth in Paragraph 17 of the Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 113). A 26 Producing Party may also designate a native file as Confidential by inserting the word 27 “Confidential” in the file name and/or by indicating the Confidentiality status in metadata provided 28 STIPULATED ORDER RE: ESI 5 Case No. 3:22-cv-00249-MMD-CLB 1 with an accompanying load file. Designation shall be in a conspicuous, nonobstructive location on 2 the face of a Document, file name of the Document, or the accompanying Documents/response. e. Bates Numbering. Each page of a produced Document shall have a legible, unique page 3 4 identifier (“Bates Number”) electronically “burned” onto the image at a location that does not 5 obliterate, conceal, or interfere with any information from the source Document. The Bates 6 Number for each page of each Document will be created to identify the Producing Party. In the 7 case of materials redacted or deemed confidential, a redaction or confidentiality designation may 8 be “burned” onto the Document’s image. The confidentiality designation will be “burned” onto 9 the Document at a location that does not obliterate, conceal, or interfere with any information from 10 the source Document. The Bates designation shall use an alphanumerical prefix that may or may 11 not have special characters and a numerical page reference that shall not include anything but 12 numbers. An acceptable example would be: “Example_0000001.” Should a Party’s Vendor or 13 Review Platform have other requirements, Parties will meet and confer in good faith. f. Redactions. Any redactions shall be clearly indicated on the face of the Document, with 14 15 each redacted portion of the Document stating that it has been redacted and the basis for the 16 redaction, or, alternatively, the Parties may provide a separate log (or included in the Privilege 17 Log). The Parties agree that they may redact Documents for sensitive personally identifiable 18 19 information, such as social security numbers or bank account numbers, or a jurisdictionally 20 recognized privilege. Other redactions shall be agreed upon by the Parties. g. Deviation from Production Specifications. If a particular Document or category of 21 22 Documents warrant a different format, the Parties will cooperate in good faith to arrange for a 23 mutually acceptable production format. 24 7. PRIVILEGE LOGS 25 a. General Requirement. Except as otherwise provided in this Section, a Producing Party 26 shall provide a log or logs of Documents the Producing Party has withheld from Production or 27 produced from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege, the work-product immunity, spousal 28 STIPULATED ORDER RE: ESI 6 Case No. 3:22-cv-00249-MMD-CLB 1 privilege, or any other applicable privilege. The Producing Party shall provide a Privilege Log 2 within thirty (30) days of production. 3 b. Materials that Need Not Be Logged. Despite the foregoing, the following materials 4 presumptively need not be logged: 5 i. Communications on or after the date that the Producing Party first filed or was 6 served with a complaint in the Litigation exclusively within a law firm, between 7 a law firm and the Party, or exclusively between or among law firms, serving as 8 the Party’s outside counsel of record, as well as their employees and support staff; 9 ii. Attorney work product created by a Party’s outside counsel on or after the date 10 that the Producing Party first filed or was served with a complaint in the 11 Litigation. 12 c. Format. The Parties will endeavor to provide a privilege log in Excel format of any 13 Documents withheld in whole or in part (i.e., redacted) based upon a claim of privilege within 14 thirty (30) days after production. The Parties further agree to meet and confer regarding the 15 production of a privilege log prior to any deposition(s) as necessary. For each Document withheld 16 or redacted, the privilege log shall contain the following information: 17 18 i. A fixed sequential index/reference number, the sequence of which shall continue in subsequent logs; 19 ii. Bates number of Documents withheld in part (i.e., redacted); 20 iii. The Document type (e.g., email, Word document, hard copy, etc.) and for any 21 Documents that include attachments, an indication that the Document has 22 attachments; 23 iv. If the Document is an email: 24 a. The subject of the e-mail, to the extent it is not privileged; 25 b. The sent date and time of the email (populated with metadata extracted 26 27 from the “Date” and “Time” fields); c. The sender (populated with metadata extracted from the “Email From” 28 STIPULATED ORDER RE: ESI 7 Case No. 3:22-cv-00249-MMD-CLB field); and 1 2 d. The recipients (populated with separate columns with metadata 3 extracted from each of the “Email To,” the “Email CC” and “Email 4 BCC” fields). v. For loose ESI or hard copy Documents (if known): 5 6 a. The author of the Document; 7 b. The date of the Document; 8 c. The filename of the Document (if applicable); 9 d. The custodian of the Document, and if no custodian can be identified the location the Document was found. 10 vi. A notation identifying any legal personnel (and their affiliation to the extent 11 they are not in-house counsel); 12 13 vii. A description of the Document sufficient to allow the Requesting Party to 14 understand the subject matter of the Document and the basis of the claim of 15 privilege or protection; and 16 viii. The basis of the privilege claimed. 17 9. THIRD-PARTY DOCUMENTS AND ESI 18 A Party that issues a non-Party subpoena (the “Issuing Party”) shall include a copy of this 19 Order and the protective order entered in this Litigation with the subpoena and state that the Parties 20 in the Litigation have requested that third parties produce Documents in accordance with the 21 specifications set forth therein. 22 10. MODIFICATION 23 This Order may be modified by a Stipulated Order of the Parties or by the Court for good 24 cause shown. 25 IT IS SO STIPULATED, through Counsel of Record. 26 27 28 STIPULATED ORDER RE: ESI 8 Case No. 3:22-cv-00249-MMD-CLB 1 Dated: November 20, 2023 Dated: November 20, 2023 2 EDELSON PC WOODBURN AND WEDGE /s/ Yaman Salahi YAMAN SALAHI, ESQ. 150 California Street, 18th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 /s/ Ellen Jean Winograd ELLEN JEAN WINOGRAD 6100 Neil Road, Ste. 500 Reno, NV 89511 /s/ Natasha Fernández-Silber NATASHA FERNÁNDEZ-SILBER, ESQ. 350 North LaSalle Drive, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Counsel for Defendant Western Range Association 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Counsel for Plaintiff and the Putative Class SIMONS HALL JOHNSTON, P.C. JERRY SNYDER LAW /s/ Anthony Hall ANTHONY HALL, ESQ. JONATHAN MCGUIRE, ESQ. DUNCAN BURKE, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendants Borda Land & Sheep Company, LLC, The Little Paris Sheep Company, LLC; John Espil Sheep Co., Inc., and Holland Ranch, LLC /s/ Jerry Snyder JERRY SNYDER, ESQ. Attorney for Defendants F.I.M. Corp.; Need More Sheep Co. LLC; Faulkner Land and Livestock Company, Inc. FABIAN VANCOTT /s/ Trevor Waite TREVOR WAITE, ESQ. KIRSTEN ALLEN, ESQ. TANNER BEAN, ESQ. SCOTT PETERSEN, ESQ. Attorneys for Defendant Ellison Ranch 23 ORDER 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. ____ day of November 2023. 26 Dated this 21st 27 U.S. Magistrate Judge 28 STIPULATED ORDER RE: ESI 9 Case No. 3:22-cv-00249-MMD-CLB
]]>
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.
