Roccaro v. Nasary

Background

Plaintiffs Gary Roccaro and Maximum Quality Foods, Inc. submitted a letter motion asking the court to enter a proposed stipulated order concerning discovery of electronically stored information, or, alternatively, to schedule an informal conference. The letter stated that the parties had met and conferred several times and were largely in agreement about the proposed order.

The letter identified two remaining disputes. First, the defendants opposed entry of the electronic-discovery order by the court and preferred a private stipulation. The plaintiffs argued that the case-management order contemplated filing the electronic-discovery agreement with the court and that court approval would address enforceability concerns. Second, the defendants sought to limit electronic discovery to email, Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and PDF files. The plaintiffs argued that relevant information might also exist in text messages and other electronic messaging platforms, particularly in connection with their trade-secret-misappropriation and unfair-competition claims.

Proposed Discovery Procedures

The attached proposed order would govern the production of paper documents and electronically stored information as a supplement to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court’s electronic-discovery guidelines, and other applicable rules and orders. It would address custodians and data sources, preservation, privilege logs, search terms, duplicate documents, hyperlinks, production formats, metadata, confidentiality designations, native files, databases, and related discovery procedures.

The proposed order would define electronically stored information to include materials such as email, chat messages, Slack messages, calendar items, memoranda, reports, presentations, spreadsheets, databases, and handwritten notes stored electronically. It would also establish technical requirements for document production, including load files, images, text files, Bates numbering, native files, and secure production methods.

Court’s Action

The court ordered: “By July 14, 2025, Defendants shall explain their position in a letter filed on the docket.” The text then states, “ORDERED,” and identifies Judge Jennifer H. Rearden. The opinion text does not state that the court granted or denied the plaintiffs’ request, entered the proposed electronic-discovery order, scheduled an informal conference, or resolved the parties’ disputes. The attached proposed order’s signature and date fields are blank.

Disposition

The court directed the defendants to file an explanation of their position by the specified deadline. Based on the opinion text provided, this was a discovery-related procedural order and not a decision on the merits of the underlying claims.