Deal Genius, LLC v. O2Cool, LLC
Deal Genius, LLC v. O2Cool, LLC
Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-02046 (N.D. Ill. 2022)
November 7, 2022

Favro, Philip J.,  Special Master

Sampling
Special Master
Privilege Log
Attorney-Client Privilege
Proportionality
Search Terms
Attorney Work-Product
ESI Protocol
Download PDF
To Cite List
Summary
O2COOL and Deal Genius agreed to a Stipulation and Agreed Order Regarding Deal Genius's Production of Emails. Deal Genius was required to collect, deduplicate, and produce emails related to six search queries, review a sample of the hit documents, and review a random sample of documents from the Null Set. The Order also allows either party to seek an extension of the periods from the Special Master.
Additional Decisions
DEAL GENIUS, LLC Plaintiff,
v.
02 COOL, LLC Defendant
Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-02046
United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division
Filed: November 07, 2022

Counsel

David J. Thomas, Pro Hac Vice, Honigman LLP, Bloomfield Hills, MI, William Butler Berndt, Ron N. Sklar, Honigman LLP, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.
Michael Anthony Parks, Sartouk H. Moussavi, Thompson Coburn LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.
Favro, Philip J., Special Master

STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF RESPONSIVE EMAILS

O2COOL, LLC and Deal Genius, LLC (collectively “the Parties”), by and through their respective counsel, have agreed upon and jointly stipulated to the terms of this Stipulation and Agreed Order Regarding Deal Genius’s Production of Emails (“Order”) pursuant to the Parties’ conference before Special Master Philip Favro on October 19, 2022 and Special Master Report No. 1 (Dkt. 86).

1. SCOPE

This Order shall govern Deal Genius’s production of emails relating to the following search queries (collectively, “the Term 1 Emails”):

(a) O2COOL

(b) 02COOL

(c) O2

(d) (O2 w/3 C!)

(e) 02C!

(f) (02 w/2 C!)

This Order incorporates by reference the Protective Order governing this case, i.e. Appendix B to the Local Patent Rules for the Northern District of Illinois (“Protective Order”).

2. COLLECTION

Deal Genius shall collect the Term 1 Emails dated July 1, 2018 through July 6, 2022.

3. DEDUPLICATION OF PRIOR PRODUCTION

Deal Genius shall deduplicate its collection of the Term 1 Emails against the emails Deal Genius produced on September 1, 2022 (“the 9/1/22 Production”). If Deal Genius produced an email in the 9/1/22 Production, Deal Genius shall remove that email (family complete) from the Term 1 Emails collection conducted pursuant to this Order.

4. HIT REPORT

(a) After Deal Genius collects and deduplicates the Term 1 Emails as set forth above, Deal Genius shall run a report that identifies the number of hits associated with each of terms (a)- (f) of the Term 1 Emails (“the Term 1 Hit Report”).

(b) Deal Genius shall provide the Term 1 Hit Report to O2COOL

5. ANALYSIS OF THE TERM 1 EMAILS

(a) After the Term 1 Hit Report has been provided as set forth above, Deal Genius shall review, code, and produce the responsive deduplicated Term 1 Emails within 30 days of the entry of this Order.

(b) Rather than initially review all of the hit emails, Deal Genius may alternatively review samples of the hit documents to gauge whether the search queries for the Term 1 Emails will in fact yield responsive information.[1]  Deal Genius may do so by obtaining a random sample of the hit emails at a 95% confidence level, 5% confidence interval; coding the selected sample emails for relevance and privilege; and sharing with O2COOL the resulting sample review metrics (i.e., the number of documents selected and coded nonresponsive, responsive and non-privileged, and responsive and privileged). Together with the review metrics, Deal Genius shall produce to O2COOL the sampled emails (family complete) that it coded responsive and non-privileged and generally describe the emails it withheld as nonresponsive.[2]

(c) The Parties understand and agree that the email collection and production process is an iterative one. Accordingly, the Parties will work cooperatively and transparently to determine whether any of the individual queries of the Term 1 Emails requires revisions to better ensure that they target relevant and proportional information pursuant to Rule 26(b)(1). The Parties may individually or collectively request the assistance of the Special Master in connection with this process.

(d) Should a dispute between the Parties arise regarding any aspect of the process in Paragraph 5 of this Order, and, after the Parties meet and confer, they are unable to reach an agreement, the Parties shall promptly submit the dispute to the Special Master. After providing the Parties an opportunity to be heard, the Special Master shall issue an order deciding the issue(s) in dispute.[3]  The Parties shall maintain their rights to take action regarding any order the Special Master may issue.[4]

(e) That Deal Genius may choose to review samples of the hit documents does not relieve Deal Genius of the obligation to complete its production of responsive deduplicated Term 1 Emails within 30 days of the entry of this Order.

6. PRODUCTION OF THE TERM 1 EMAILS

(a) After completing the process set forth in Paragraph 5 of this Order regarding the Term 1 Emails, Deal Genius shall produce the relevant emails (family complete) to O2COOL in the same production format the Parties used in their prior email productions.

(b) Within seven days following delivery of the Term 1 Emails production, Deal Genius shall serve a corresponding privilege log setting forth any claims of privilege or work product over relevant documents among the hit emails.

7. VALIDATION: NULL SET DOCUMENT REVIEW AND PRODUCTION

(a) After Deal Genius completes the production set forth in Paragraphs 5 and 6 of this Order, Deal Genius shall provide a report to O2COOL reflecting the total number of documents from its email custodians that were either coded nonresponsive or that did not hit on the search queries for the Term 1 Emails, and were thus not produced nor designated as privileged (the “Null Set”).[5] Deal Genius shall next prepare a random sample of documents from the Null Set, calculated using a statistical confidence level of 95% with a confidence interval (margin of error) of 2% (“Null Set Sample”). Deal Genius shall then have 10 days to review the Null Set Sample and code the documents for relevance and privilege.[6]

(b) When Deal Genius has completed its review of the Null Set Sample, it will subsequently notify O2COOL of the size of the Null Set, the size of the Null Set Sample, and the number of responsive documents (if any) found during the review of the Null Set Sample. If responsive information is identified during the Null Set review, Deal Genius shall produce the newly identified relevant emails (family complete) to O2COOL in the same production format the Parties used for their prior email productions. Within seven days following the production (if any) of documents from the Null Set Sample, Deal Genius shall serve a corresponding privilege log setting forth any claims of privilege or work product over relevant documents identified in the Null Set Sample.

(c) The Parties will then meet and confer within seven days following the production of any relevant documents found in the Null Set Sample to determine if modifications to the search queries for the Term 1 Emails are needed to ensure that Deal Genius produces other relevant documents (assuming there are any additional relevant documents) from the Null Set that are material to the claims and defenses of the above-captioned litigation.

(d) If, after the Parties meet and confer, they are unable to reach an agreement on whether and what additional relevant documents should be produced, the Parties shall promptly submit the dispute to the Special Master for review. After providing the Parties an opportunity to be heard, the Special Master shall issue an order deciding the issue(s) in dispute.[7]  The Parties shall maintain their rights to take action regarding any order the Special Master may issue.[8] 

8. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS

(a) Either of the Parties may seek from the Special Master—after demonstrating good cause—a reasonable extension of the periods within which to satisfy the obligations in this Order.

(b) This Order may be modified upon agreement of the Parties and approval of the Court.

SO STIPULATED, through Counsel of Record.

Dated: November 4, 2022

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Michael A. Parks
Michael A. Parks, IL 6217230
Sartouk H. Moussavi, IL 6313554
THOMPSON COBURN LLP
55 East Monroe Street, 37th Floor
Chicago, IL 60603
P: (312) 346-7500; F: (312) 580-2201
mparks@thompsoncoburn.com
smoussavi@thompsoncoburn.com
Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff 02COOL, LLC

By: /s/ Ron N. Sklar
Ron N. Sklar (State Bar No. 6304022)
rsklar@honigman.com
William B. Berndt (State Bar No. 6269408)
wberndt@honigman.com
HONIGMAN LLP
155 North Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 701-9300
Facsimile: (312) 701-9335
Attorneys for Plaintiff Deal Genius, LLC

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 4, 2022
Philip J. Favro
Special Master

Footnotes

See The Sedona Conference, Commentary on Proportionality in Electronic Discovery, 18 SEDONA CONF. J. 141, 167 (2017) (“using sampling to demonstrate the rate of responsive information can support an argument that a data source is or is not likely to contain responsive information.”).
See id. at 166-67 (“in order to demonstrate the absence of unique responsive information, a party may consider providing a description or examples of the irrelevant documents to the requesting party in order to provide that party with equal knowledge as to what would be yielded from a search of those sources.”).
See FED. R. CIV. P. 53(d).
FED. R. CIV. P. 53(f).
See City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD Inc., 326 F.R.D. 489, 491-92 (N.D. Ill. 2018) (describing the meaning of “null set” and the measures the court ordered the parties to incorporate into their ESI search protocol to ensure that a reasonable review of the null set documents transpired and that materially relevant information was not unreasonably nor inadvertently excluded from the parties’ respective productions); Shumway v. Wright, No. 4:19-cv-00058, 2019 WL 8135308 (D. Utah Nov. 22, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, No. 4:19-CV-00058-DN-PK, 2019 WL 8137130 (D. Utah Dec. 16, 2019) (detailing the nature and significance of the “null set”).
For reference purposes, depending on the final volume of the Null Set, it is anticipated that the Null Set Sample will contain between 1,000 and 2,400 documents.
See FED. R. CIV. P. 53(d).
FED. R. CIV. P. 53(f).