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.

Funderburk v. South Carolina Electric & Gas

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Columbia Division

January 19, 2016

Sharon Funderburk and Thomas Funderburk Plaintiffs,
v.
South Carolina Electric and Gas, Defendant. John P. Cantwell, Plaintiff,
v.
South Carolina Electric and Gas, Defendant. Robert Sherr and Kristi Sherr, Plaintiffs,
v.
South Carolina Electric and Gas, Defendant. Harry Crosby, Plaintiff,
v.
South Carolina Electric and Gas, Defendant. Leonard Anderson and Karen Anderson, Plaintiffs,
v.
South Carolina Electric and Gas, Defendant. Carol Bausinger and Scott Bausinger, Plaintiffs,
v.
South Carolina Electric and Gas, Defendant. Christina Boris and Glenn Boris, Plaintiffs,
v.
South Carolina Electric and Gas, Defendant. Adair Long, Tony Long and Marion Christopher Long, Plaintiffs,
v.
South Carolina Electric and Gas, Defendant. Will Markham, Plaintiff,
v.
South Carolina Electric and Gas, Defendant. Richard Miranda and Dorothy Miranda, Plaintiffs,
v.
South Carolina Electric and Gas, Defendant. Calvin Nesbit and Jane Nesbit, Plaintiffs,
v.
South Carolina Electric and Gas, Defendant. Harry A. Plexico, Jr. and Margaret S. Plexico, Plaintiffs,
v.
South Carolina Electric and Gas, Defendant. Jim Reilly and Rachael Reilly, Plaintiffs,
v.
South Carolina Electric and Gas, Defendant. Carlo J. Seigfried, Plaintiff,
v.
South Carolina Electric and Gas, Defendant. Faron Warwick and Dana Warwick, Plaintiffs,
v.
South Carolina Electric and Gas, Defendant. Jeanne West, Plaintiff,
v.
South Carolina Electric and Gas, Defendant. Chris Williams and Catherine Williams, Plaintiffs,
v.
South Carolina Electric and Gas, Defendant. Warren Boyeson and Christine M. Boyeson, Plaintiffs,
v.
South Carolina Electric and Gas, Defendant. Karl Hagenmeyer and Willette Hagenmeyer, Plaintiffs,
v.
South Carolina Electric and Gas, Defendant. John E. Retz, Plaintiff,
v.
South Carolina Electric and Gas, Defendant. Jesse L. Soles, Plaintiff,
v.
South Carolina Electric and Gas, Defendant. Lucas J. Snyder and Lesley M. Snyder, Plaintiffs,
v.
South Carolina Electric and Gas and The County of Lexington, South Carolina, Defendants. Demario Benjamin and Kerochedia Amaker, Plaintiffs,
v.
South Carolina Electric and Gas CSX Transportation Inc., Defendants. Ann Dennis Plaintiff,
v.
South Carolina Electric and Gas and CSX Transportation Inc., Defendants. Richard Green, Plaintiff,
v.
South Carolina Electric and Gas and CSX Transportation Inc., Defendants. Anthony Melton, Plaintiff,
v.
South Carolina Electric and Gas and Defendants. Field Name Description/ Comments Fields for ESI and or Hard Copy

          JOINT STIPULATION ESTABLISHING ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY PROTOCOL AND ORDER

          J. MICHELLE CHILDS United States District Judge

         In accordance with the Rule 26(f) Report submitted by the parties to the Court on July 29, 2016, the parties, after conferring, hereby stipulate as follows regarding the production of electronically stored information (“ESI”) in connection with the above-captioned cases and recommend adoption of this protocol as an Order of the Court:

         ESI Discovery Procedures

         1. Absent a showing of good cause by the requesting party, the parties shall not be required to modify the procedures used by them in the ordinary course of business to back-up and archive data; provided however, that the parties will take reasonable steps to preserve reasonably accessible documents from custodians and sources they have identified as having relevant information.

         2. Search Terms/Date Ranges: In an attempt to minimize e-discovery costs and disputes, the parties will meet and confer and agree upon custodians whose files will be searched, search terms or the use of technology assisted review tools (TAR) to identify the relevant ESI, and the relevant date ranges for all document reviews and productions.

         3. A producing party may collect some documents by doing “targeted” collections from custodians or sources based on documents selected by custodians or by collecting folders identified as containing responsive materials. No party has a duty to collect and process all data from certain sources, or to run search terms if such collection, processing and searching creates an undue burden or is not proportional to the needs of the case.

         4. De-duplication. The parties may eliminate exact duplicates of ESI during processing across custodial and non-custodial data sources (i.e., global deduplication). ESI duplicates shall be identified by using industry standard MD5, SHA-1, or SHA-256 algorithms only to create and compare hash values for exact matches only.

         Privileged Materials

         5. With respect to privileged or work-product information generated after the filing of the complaint, parties are not required to include any such information in privilege logs.

         6. The parties agree that if e-mail strings are identified as privileged, only the metadata at the top of the string need be included on the log, although the parties agree that if there are any third parties included on any portion of the string withheld, those third parties will be identified in the log entry.

         7. The parties agree that this Order is an Order entered under Rule 502(d) of the Federal Rules of Evidence and thus the disclosure of Identified Materials is not a waiver of the privilege in any other federal or state proceeding.

         8. The treatment of inadvertently-produced privileged materials is governed by the Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order, entered by the Court on July 1, 2016.

         Format for Document Productions

         9. The parties agree that all documents maintained originally in electronic, native format (“ESI”) are to be produced in the format specified in in ...


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.