ORDER

JAMES L. ROBART, District Judge.

Before the court is the parties' joint submission regarding the class briefing schedule and Defendant Microsoft's privilege logs. (Joint Subm. (Dkt. # 106).) Having considered the submission, the appropriate portions of the record, and the relevant law, the court ADOPTS the parties' proposed class briefing schedule, EXTENDS the deadline for the parties to resolve or submit to the court any privilege log dispute, ORDERS the parties to continue their efforts to agree on the form of a privilege log through meet-and-confers, and CLARIFIES its August 3, 2016, order (8/3/16 Order (Dkt. # 101)) as stated below.

The parties first jointly propose a class certification briefing schedule. (Joint Subm. at 1.) Based on the agreement between the parties, the court ADOPTS that schedule and ORDERS that briefing on class certification and issues involving expert testimony proceeds as follows:

(See Joint Subm. at 1.) The court also increases the page limits to 50 pages for the motion and opposition brief and 25 pages for the reply brief. (Id.)

Second, the parties indicate that they have largely agreed on a format for Microsoft's privilege log. (Joint Subm. at 1-2.) To the extent the parties have not reached agreement, the parties have scheduled further meet and confers for this week. (Id. at 11.) Accordingly, the court EXTENDS until September 2, 2016, the deadline for the parties to either reach agreement on the form of the privilege log or submit proposed written language as to the form of the log to the court. In the interim, the court ORDERS the parties to continue their efforts to resolve the remaining issues by meeting and conferring.

Third, the parties request clarification regarding the court's ruling at the August 2, 2016, hearing and the court's August 3, 2016, order memorializing its oral rulings. (Id. at 2-10.) At the hearing, the court overruled Microsoft's objection to producing materials responsive to Plaintiffs' request for production 10. (8/3/16 Order at 2.) Plaintiffs understand that ruling to encompass not just the final product of Microsoft's internal audits and analyses, but also the underlying data and correspondence thereto. (Joint Subm. at 2-10.) Microsoft understands the court's ruling to encompass only the final internal audits and analyses that Microsoft produced. (Id. at 10.) Plaintiffs correctly understand the court's ruling. To the extent the documents are not privileged, Microsoft must produce the data and correspondence underlying their internal audits and analyses because those documents are "documents or correspondence related to" the audits and analyses — as requested in request for production 10. (See 8/3/16 Order at 2.)

Finally, the court cautions the parties that it may deny as improperly presented any further request for relief contained in a filing other than a motion, unless the court gives prior approval to present the request in a particular fashion.