Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lechner v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co.

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

April 9, 2019

TAMERA S. LECHNER, REGINA K. WHITE, and STEVEN D. GIFFORD individually, and on behalf of the MUTUAL OF OMAHA 401k LONG-TERM SAVINGS PLAN and on behalf of a class of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
MUTUAL OF OMAHA INSURANCE COMPANY, UNITED OF OMAHA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-50, Defendants.

          Hon. Joseph F. Bataillon.

          PROTECTIVE ORDER (ESI PROTOCOL)

          Cheryl R. Zwart United States Magistrate Judge.

         The parties' Joint Motion for Protective Order Regarding ESI Protocol Production Format and Metadata is granted. (See Filing No. 68). The agreed protective order is set forth below.

         1. General Provisions. The following terms and conditions (this “ESI Order”) shall govern the collection and production of electronically stored information and any other materials and information in the above-captioned matter (the “Litigation”). Unless specifically outlined herein, this ESI Order shall neither enlarge, reduce, or otherwise affect the scope of discovery in this Litigation as provided by the Local Civil Rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Court's orders, nor imply that documents produced under the terms of this ESI Order are discoverable or relevant in this Litigation or any other action. This ESI Order is intended to streamline production to promote a “just, speedy and inexpensive determination” of this action, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 1. The parties agree to promptly alert all other parties concerning any technical problems associated with complying with this ESI Order. To the extent compliance with this ESI Order imposes an undue burden with respect to any protocol, source, or search term listed herein, the parties shall promptly confer in an effort to resolve the issue. If there is a dispute concerning the scope of a party's preservation or collection efforts, the burden is on the receiving parties to explain their reasons for believing that additional efforts are reasonable and proportionate. In particular, before initiating discovery about preservation and collection, a party shall confer with the other party concerning the specific need for such discovery, including its relevance to claims and defenses, and the suitability of alternative means for obtaining the information. Discovery into such matters may be compelled only on a showing of good cause considering at least the aforementioned factors.

         2. Identification and Collection of Documents. Except at otherwise agreed upon in this Stipulation, the Parties will meet and confer in an effort to agree upon the following:

a. List of records custodians;
b. Search methodology to be applied, including, but not limited to, search terms and date restrictions; and
c. Location of relevant data sources including custodial and non-custodial.

         Email and Non-Email: the parties agree to search for and produce unique, responsive records from sources of hard copy and ESI to the extent a custodian reveals that such locations may contain responsive information and such data is within the possession, custody or control of the producing party.

         If the parties cannot resolve any dispute regarding this section, consistent with The Sedona Conference Principles, Principle 6, the responding party is best suited to evaluate the procedures, methodologies, and technologies appropriate for preserving and producing their own electronically stored information.

         3. Production Components. To the extent the parties are reasonably able to provide these components, productions shall include single page TIFFs, Text Files, an ASCII delimited metadata file (.txt, .dat, or .csv) and an image load file that can be loaded into commercially acceptable production software (e.g., Relativity).

         4. Search Parameters. Scanned images must be OCR'd to ensure they are searchable prior to any keyword searching or production. “OCR” means Optical Character Recognition, and is the machine recognition of printed characters from Image Files or other non-searchable text contained in a document into machine-encoded text so that the text can be indexed and searched for specific characters, words or phrases. For each document, an extracted text file should be provided along with its corresponding TIFF image file(s) and metadata. The file name of each extracted text file should be identical to that of the first image page of its corresponding document, followed by .txt.

         5. Image Load File. The Image Load File shall contain the following comma-delimited fields to the extent captured: BEGBATES, VOLUME, IMAGE FILE PATH, DOCUMENT BREAK, FOLDER BREAK, BOX BREAK, and PAGE COUNT.

         6. Deduplication. A party is only required to produce a single copy of a responsive document and may de-duplicate responsive ESI (based on MD5 or SHA-1 hash values at the document level, or otherwise where the ESI has the exact duplicate content, excluding metadata) across custodians. Metadata identifying all custodians in possession of each document that is removed as a duplicate should be produced in the “CUSTODIAN” or “ALL CUSTODIAN” metadata ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.