MARSHA J. PECHMAN, Senior District Judge.
The parties hereby stipulate to the following provisions regarding the discovery of electronically stored information ("ESI") in this matter:
1. An attorney's zealous representation of a client is not compromised by conducting discovery in a cooperative manner. The failure of counsel or the parties to litigation to cooperate in facilitating and reasonably limiting discovery requests and responses raises litigation costs and contributes to the risk of sanctions.
2. The proportionality standard set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) must be applied in each case when formulating a discovery plan. To further the application of the proportionality standard in discovery, requests for production of ESI and related responses should be reasonably targeted, clear, and as specific as possible.
Within 45 days after the date of submission of this order, or at a later time if agreed to by the parties, each party shall disclose:
1.
2.
3.
4.
The parties acknowledge that they have a common law obligation to take reasonable and proportional steps to preserve discoverable information in the party's possession, custody or control. With respect to preservation of ESI, the parties agree as follows:
1. Absent a showing of good cause by the requesting party, the parties shall not be required to modify the procedures used by them in the ordinary course of business to back-up and archive data; provided, however, that the parties shall take reasonable steps to preserve all discoverable ESI in their possession, custody or control.
2. All parties shall supplement their disclosures in accordance with Rule 26(e) with discoverable ESI responsive to a particular discovery request or mandatory disclosure where that data is created after a disclosure or response is made (unless excluded under (C)(3) or (D)(1)-(2) below or otherwise privileged).
3. Absent a showing of good cause by the requesting party, the following categories of ESI need not be preserved:
The parties will continue to confer regarding the nature and scope of privilege logs for the case, including whether categories of information may be excluded from any logging requirements as they arise, and whether alternatives to document-by-document logs can be exchanged.
1. With respect to privileged or work-product information generated after the filing of the complaint, parties are not required to include any such information in privilege logs.
2. Activities undertaken in compliance with the duty to preserve information are protected from disclosure and discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A) and (B).
3. The parties intend to enter into a Fed. R. Evidence 502(d) agreement to govern the clawback of any privileged material which will be separately submitted to the Court.
4. Privilege Log Based on Metadata. The parties agree that privilege logs shall include a unique identification number for each document and the basis for the claim (attorney-client privileged or work-product protection). For ESI, the privilege log may be generated using available metadata, including author/recipient or to/from/cc/bcc names; the subject matter or title and date created. Should the available metadata provide insufficient information for the purpose of evaluating the privilege claim asserted, the producing party shall include such additional information as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
1.
2.
a. A producing party shall disclose the search terms or queries, if any, and methodology that it proposes to use to locate ESI likely to contain discoverable information. The parties shall meet and confer to attempt to reach an agreement on the producing party's search terms and/or other methodology.
b. If search terms or queries are used to locate ESI likely to contain discoverable information, a requesting party is entitled to no more than 5 additional terms or queries to be used in connection with further electronic searches absent a showing of good cause or agreement of the parties. The 5 additional terms or queries, if any, must be provided by the requesting party within 14 days of receipt of the producing party's production.
c. Focused terms and queries should be employed; broad terms or queries, such as product and company names, generally should be avoided. Absent a showing of good cause, each search term or query returning more than 250 megabytes of data is presumed to be overbroad, excluding Microsoft PowerPoint files, image and audio files, and similarly large file types.
d. The producing party shall search both non-custodial data sources and ESI maintained by the custodians identified above.
e. The parties reserve their rights to identify responsive documents through methods other than search terms, to include informed custodial self-identification. "Informed custodial self-identification" means a process by which a document custodian, in consultation with legal counsel, identifies folders, drives, or repositories of documents and/or ESI that are likely to contain materials that are responsive to the Receiving Party's discovery requests.
3.
4.
5.
This Agreement may be modified by agreement of the parties or by the Court for good cause shown.
Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prohibit the undersigned Parties from agreeing to modify any provision of this Agreement or seeking relief from the Court. Nor shall anything in this Agreement or any Party's compliance be construed as a waiver of any Party's rights under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Nor shall anything in this Agreement be interpreted to require disclosure of information that is not relevant to the claims or defenses in this case or that is protected by any applicable privilege. Nor shall anything in this Agreement be construed to waive any objections as to the production, discoverability, or confidentiality of ESI.
Based on the foregoing, IT IS SO ORDERED.