Before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Discovery Submission regarding three disputes in their draft ESI Order. Dkt. 17. The close of fact discovery in this case is December 15, 2023. Dkt. 14. The Court has reviewed the submission and the relevant law and determines that this matter may be resolved without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

I. Identification of Custodians and Data Sources

Very generally, Plaintiffs seek a high degree of specificity in the ESI Order. To wit, Plaintiffs identify 16 specific custodians and 14 specific data sources and two general categories of data sources (“directories and programs Tesla uses for simulations”) to be included in the draft order. Tesla generally complains that it is premature to identify specific custodians or data sources to be searched until formal discovery requests have been served.[1] As a result, Tesla proposes only that the draft order state that the Parties will “meet and confer.”

This case is a product liability action arising out of the alleged malfunction of the autopilot feature in a Tesla Model 3. It is obvious from press publications that this is not the only suit of its kind pending against Tesla, although each action may present its own circumstances. Additionally, the Parties jointly submitted a case management statement in early March of this year, identifying key facts and issues. Dkt. 12. The point is that Tesla is now in a position to specifically identify at least some number of relevant custodians and data sources. Tesla complains that Plaintiffs’ lists identify custodians and data sources “many of whom are unlikely to have relevant information or are duplicative,” however, it does not appear that Tesla has engaged in constructive discussions with Plaintiffs as to which custodians or data sources on Plaintiffs’ lists fall into these categories. While in some cases it is not inappropriate for the ESI order to indicate that the parties will meet and confer on custodians and data sources, those proposals generally include a specific process and timetable for doing so; they are not left open-ended as Tesla has proposed here.

Accordingly, the Court finds that it is proportional to the needs of the litigation for Tesla to identify an initial list of custodians and data sources at this stage of the litigation and ORDERS as follows:

• No later than April 25, 2023 Tesla will identify at least six relevant custodians by name and at least two additional relevant data sources (for a total of at least five) that Tesla reasonably anticipates will need to be searched in response to discovery in this action. These custodians and data sources will be included in the ESI Order as “initial custodians and data sources.” The ESI Order will also provide that the list of custodians and data sources “may be expanded by agreement of the Parties or upon a showing of good cause.”
• Once discovery requests are served in this action, the Parties will meet and confer as to additional relevant custodians, including a maximum number, and as to additional data sources. The Court expects the Parties to reach agreement on these issues following robust meet and confer efforts as outlined in this Court’s standing order.

II. Production Format and Processing Specifications

The Court is pleased that the Parties reached agreement on certain production formats. The remaining disputes in this category are informed by the Court’s Order above as to identification of data sources. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:

• For the no fewer than five data sources identified in section I above, the ESI Order will identify the production format.
• As for the general language on this topic to be included in the ESI Order, the Court adopts Tesla’s proposed language as reflected in Dkt. 19.
• The remaining data sources and production formats proposed by Plaintiffs in Dkt. 19 are premature and denied without prejudice.

III. Hyperlinks

Based upon the Parties’ positions as set forth in Dkt. 19, there is agreement that each submission will be capped at 25. The time for production of identified hyperlinked documents shall be 21 days. Tesla’s proposal for a cap on the total number of requests is reasonable but premature at this juncture. Tesla’s limitation to the vehicle, configuration and collision at issue in this action may also, in some instances, be reasonable but is not appropriate as a blanket limitation. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the ESI Order will reflect the following edited version of Tesla’s proposal:

SO ORDERED.