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.

Ollila v. Babcock & Wilcox Enterprises, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division

July 11, 2018

ERIC OLLILA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,
v.
BABCOCK & WILCOX ENTERPRISES, INC., E. JAMES FERLAND and JENNY L. APKER, Defendants Field Name Description Example / Format

          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP Frederic S. Fox Donald R. Hall Melinda Campbell Ralph E. Labaton Counsel for Lead Plaintiff and the Class.

          ALSTON & BIRD LLP THOMAS G. WALKER N.C. JOHN L. LATHAM SUSAN E. HURD JASON R. OUTLAW ALSTON & BIRD LLP Counsel for Defendants.

          BLUE LLP Dhamian Blue Liaison Counsel.

          Additional Counsel for Named Plaintiff and Lead Plaintiff: LABATON SUCHAROW LLP Jonathan Gardner Christine M. Fox Marisa N. DeMato.

          Additional Counsel for Lead Plaintiff: KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP Andrew L. Zivitz Geoffrey C. Jarvis Matthew L. Mustokoff Margaret E. Mazzeo Jennifer L. Joost One Sansome Street.

          PROTOCOL GOVERNING DISCOVERY MATTERS AND THE PRODUCTION OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION (“ESI”)

          David C. Keesler United States Magistrate Judge.

         The parties, by their undersigned counsel, hereby agree to the following regarding the review and production of documents and Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”) in discovery:

         I. PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW OF ESI:

         The parties agree to confer in good faith regarding the possibility of utilizing common document review methodologies, including: (i) forms of targeted assisted review (“TAR”) such as simple active- or passive-learning, continuous active- or multi-model-learning, or some combination thereof; (ii) date filtering; and (iii) keyword search queries (e.g., single term or Boolean strings). No. party shall use predictive coding/technology-assisted-review for the purpose of culling the documents to be reviewed or produced without notifying the opposing party prior to use and with ample time to meet and confer in good faith regarding the use of such technologies.

         II. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS COLLECTED IN HARD COPY FORM:

         All hard copy documents should be scanned and produced as single-page, Group IV, 300 DPI TIFF images with an image load file (.OPT file and/or .LFP file) and a delimited database/metadata load file (.DAT). The database/metadata load file should contain the metadata fields listed in EXHIBIT A to the extent such metadata already exists at the time of collection. Nothing in this Order shall be interpreted as requiring any party to create and produce any metadata that does not already exist. The parties also agree to supply in the load file the vendor-created fields specifically identified in EXHIBIT A.

         All documents are to be provided with per document searchable text (.TXT) files that contain full text extraction. In the event a document is scanned into TIFF format, the text file should contain that document's OCR text. The OCR software should maximize text quality over process speed. Settings such as “auto-skewing” and “auto-rotation” should be turned on during the OCR process. Where hard copy documents are scanned for the first time for purposes of review and production in this litigation, the documents should be logically unitized (i.e., distinct documents should not be merged into a single record, and a single document should not be split into multiple records) and should be produced in the order in which they are kept in the usual course of business.

         If an original document contains color, is not produced in color, and color is necessary to understand the meaning or content of the document, then reasonable requests for the production of specific documents as single-page, 300 DPI, color JPG images with the quality setting 75% or higher will not be unreasonably denied.

         III. PROD ...


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.