Preview
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
E.E. CRUZ & COMPANY, INC.,
Plaintiffs, Index No.: 652321/2020
- against - STIPULATION ON
ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY
STARR SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE
COMPANY
Defendants.
This Stipulation on Electronic Discovery (“Stipulation”) is entered into jointly by Plaintiff
E.E. Cruz & Company, Inc. (“Cruz”) and Defendant Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company
(“Starr”) (collectively, the “parties,” and each individually a “party”) and shall govern various
electronic discovery issues in above-captioned litigation.
1. Scope of Discovery. This Stipulation does not affect the proper subject matter of discovery
in this action, nor does this Stipulation imply the documents or electronically stored information
(“ESI”) produced under its terms are relevant or admissible in this action or any other litigation.
2. Preservation of Data. This Stipulation does not alter or expand the preservation
obligations of any party.
3. Privileges. Nothing in this Stipulation shall be interpreted as requiring the disclosure of
documents or ESI that a party contends are protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work-
product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or protection.
4. Reservation of Rights. The parties reserve all rights available to them under the New York
Civil Practice Law and Rules, the Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court, the Rules of the
Commercial Division of the Supreme Court, and applicable judicial practice standards.
5. Searching for ESI.
a. Custodians. The parties shall disclose the custodians that are likely to have ESI
relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. The parties have a continuing obligation to
disclose such custodians, and any potential custodians identified through the course of discovery
must be disclosed to the opposing parties. The parties’ requests for production of documents are
hereby deemed to include requests for ESI from each person identified in the other party’s
interrogatory responses.
b. Sources. The parties shall make reasonable efforts to identify and collect documents
and ESI from electronic mail containing information responsive to discovery requests, including
servers, network drives, and shared drives, consistent with the custodians disclosed pursuant to
paragraph 5a and without need to collect and produce redundant information. The scope of this
agreement is limited to the discovery and production of electronic mail.
c. Search Terms. The parties may use keyword searching to identify ESI that is
responsive to discovery requests. However, the use of search terms does not foreclose a party’s
right to use other technologies to identify responsive ESI, where appropriate. The use of search
terms does not relieve any party of its duty to search for, collect, and produce non-privileged
responsive documents that are not amenable to collection through the use of search terms, nor of
its duty to produce non-privileged responsive documents of which it becomes aware.
d. Other Mechanisms for Searching for ESI. To the extent that a party chooses to
search for and review ESI using a technology or methodology other than search terms (including,
for instance, predictive coding), that party shall disclose its intent to use that technology and the
name of the review tool. However, the party need not share the intricacies of said methodology
unless and until there is an Order from the Court requiring otherwise.
e. Disagreements as to Methods of Searching for ESI. If the parties disagree on the
proper custodians, sources of ESI, search terms, or other mechanisms for searching for ESI, the
parties will first meet and confer. If the parties do not reach an agreement, any party may file an
appropriate motion for determination by the Court. During the pendency of any such motion, the
producing party’s production obligation shall be stayed.
6. Production of Documents
a. Each party shall take reasonable steps to preserve the integrity of ESI associated
with the documents produced.
b. Each party shall be permitted to use electronic horizontal and/or vertical de-
duplication software to eliminate multiple copies of identical documents (including emails). In
addition, the parties need not produce non-human readable electronic documents (for example
documents that include only machine-readable language), except upon a showing of good cause
by the requesting party. Each party may de-duplicate emails in such a way as to eliminate earlier
or incomplete chains of email and produce only the most complete iteration of an email chain.
c. Parent-child relationships (i.e., the association between an attachment and its parent
document) shall be preserved. The attachment shall be produced adjacent to the parent document,
and in terms of Bates numbers, with the first attachment being named with the next sequential
number after the parent, and any additional attachment(s) sequentially numbered after that first
attachment.
d. Each party shall bear its own costs with respect to the collection and production of
ESI. Each party reserves the right to seek judicial intervention with respect to allocation of costs
for the collection and/or production of ESI in the event that a requesting party seeks ESI that is not
readily available and/or the collection/production of such ESI is unduly burdensome on the
producing party. This provision shall not apply to any sanctions or fees sought by either party and
ordered by the Court as a result of either party’s non-compliance.
e. Each document production shall be produced as Bates stamped PDFs. Excel,
PowerPoint, and other similar files will be produced in their native application, along with a
“placeholder” PDF bearing the same Bates stamp as the natively-produced document.
7. Modification: The Parties reserve the right to reduce, expand, or otherwise modify this
Stipulation and its scope as it relates to other aspects of discovery in the above-captioned litigation.
Dated: October 27, 2021
E.E. CRUZ & COMPANY, INC.
By: __________________________________
Stacy M. Manobianca (NY Bar: 4395935)
smanobianca@sdvlaw.com
Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.
35 Nutmeg Drive, Suite 140
Trumbull, Connecticut 06611
Tel: (203) 287-2100
Attorney for Plaintiffs
STARR SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY
By: ___________________________________
Charles Rocco (NY Bar: 2584456)
crocco@fgppr.com
Foran Glennon Palandech Ponzi & Rudloff, PC
40 Wall Street, 54th Floor
New York, New York 10005
Tel: (212) 257-7100
Attorney for Defendant
SO ORDERED.
Dated: ________________
New York, New York
_________________________________
J.S.C.
5
Preview
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK E.E. CRUZ & COMPANY, INC., Plaintiffs, Index No.: 652321/2020 - against - STIPULATION ON ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY STARR SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY Defendants. This Stipulation on Electronic Discovery (“Stipulation”) is entered into jointly by Plaintiff E.E. Cruz & Company, Inc. (“Cruz”) and Defendant Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company (“Starr”) (collectively, the “parties,” and each individually a “party”) and shall govern various electronic discovery issues in above-captioned litigation. 1. Scope of Discovery. This Stipulation does not affect the proper subject matter of discovery in this action, nor does this Stipulation imply the documents or electronically stored information (“ESI”) produced under its terms are relevant or admissible in this action or any other litigation. 2. Preservation of Data. This Stipulation does not alter or expand the preservation obligations of any party. 3. Privileges. Nothing in this Stipulation shall be interpreted as requiring the disclosure of documents or ESI that a party contends are protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work- product doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or protection. 4. Reservation of Rights. The parties reserve all rights available to them under the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, the Uniform Civil Rules for the Supreme Court, the Rules of the Commercial Division of the Supreme Court, and applicable judicial practice standards. 5. Searching for ESI. a. Custodians. The parties shall disclose the custodians that are likely to have ESI relevant to the claims and defenses in this action. The parties have a continuing obligation to disclose such custodians, and any potential custodians identified through the course of discovery must be disclosed to the opposing parties. The parties’ requests for production of documents are hereby deemed to include requests for ESI from each person identified in the other party’s interrogatory responses. b. Sources. The parties shall make reasonable efforts to identify and collect documents and ESI from electronic mail containing information responsive to discovery requests, including servers, network drives, and shared drives, consistent with the custodians disclosed pursuant to paragraph 5a and without need to collect and produce redundant information. The scope of this agreement is limited to the discovery and production of electronic mail. c. Search Terms. The parties may use keyword searching to identify ESI that is responsive to discovery requests. However, the use of search terms does not foreclose a party’s right to use other technologies to identify responsive ESI, where appropriate. The use of search terms does not relieve any party of its duty to search for, collect, and produce non-privileged responsive documents that are not amenable to collection through the use of search terms, nor of its duty to produce non-privileged responsive documents of which it becomes aware. d. Other Mechanisms for Searching for ESI. To the extent that a party chooses to search for and review ESI using a technology or methodology other than search terms (including, for instance, predictive coding), that party shall disclose its intent to use that technology and the name of the review tool. However, the party need not share the intricacies of said methodology unless and until there is an Order from the Court requiring otherwise. e. Disagreements as to Methods of Searching for ESI. If the parties disagree on the proper custodians, sources of ESI, search terms, or other mechanisms for searching for ESI, the parties will first meet and confer. If the parties do not reach an agreement, any party may file an appropriate motion for determination by the Court. During the pendency of any such motion, the producing party’s production obligation shall be stayed. 6. Production of Documents a. Each party shall take reasonable steps to preserve the integrity of ESI associated with the documents produced. b. Each party shall be permitted to use electronic horizontal and/or vertical de- duplication software to eliminate multiple copies of identical documents (including emails). In addition, the parties need not produce non-human readable electronic documents (for example documents that include only machine-readable language), except upon a showing of good cause by the requesting party. Each party may de-duplicate emails in such a way as to eliminate earlier or incomplete chains of email and produce only the most complete iteration of an email chain. c. Parent-child relationships (i.e., the association between an attachment and its parent document) shall be preserved. The attachment shall be produced adjacent to the parent document, and in terms of Bates numbers, with the first attachment being named with the next sequential number after the parent, and any additional attachment(s) sequentially numbered after that first attachment. d. Each party shall bear its own costs with respect to the collection and production of ESI. Each party reserves the right to seek judicial intervention with respect to allocation of costs for the collection and/or production of ESI in the event that a requesting party seeks ESI that is not readily available and/or the collection/production of such ESI is unduly burdensome on the producing party. This provision shall not apply to any sanctions or fees sought by either party and ordered by the Court as a result of either party’s non-compliance. e. Each document production shall be produced as Bates stamped PDFs. Excel, PowerPoint, and other similar files will be produced in their native application, along with a “placeholder” PDF bearing the same Bates stamp as the natively-produced document. 7. Modification: The Parties reserve the right to reduce, expand, or otherwise modify this Stipulation and its scope as it relates to other aspects of discovery in the above-captioned litigation. Dated: October 27, 2021 E.E. CRUZ & COMPANY, INC. By: __________________________________ Stacy M. Manobianca (NY Bar: 4395935) smanobianca@sdvlaw.com Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C. 35 Nutmeg Drive, Suite 140 Trumbull, Connecticut 06611 Tel: (203) 287-2100 Attorney for Plaintiffs STARR SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY By: ___________________________________ Charles Rocco (NY Bar: 2584456) crocco@fgppr.com Foran Glennon Palandech Ponzi & Rudloff, PC 40 Wall Street, 54th Floor New York, New York 10005 Tel: (212) 257-7100 Attorney for Defendant SO ORDERED. Dated: ________________ New York, New York _________________________________ J.S.C. 5