Attias et al v. Mars Petcare US, Inc.

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
HELENE ATTIAS, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARS PETCARE US, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:25-cv-00507
Chief Judge Campbell
Magistrate Judge Frensley
STIPULATED ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY OF
ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION
1. General Provisions & Definitions
a. This Order will govern discovery of electronically stored information (“ESI”) in
this case as a supplement to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any other
applicable orders and rules. Except as specifically set forth herein, this Order does
not alter or affect the applicability of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Local
Rules for the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.
b. “Party” or “Parties” means one or more of the parties in the above-captioned
litigation.
2. Cooperation. The Parties are aware of the importance the Court places on cooperation
and commit to cooperate in good faith throughout the matter.
3. Preservation. A Party has an obligation to take reasonable and proportional steps to
preserve discoverable ESI in the Party’s possession, custody or control. The Producing
Party is best situated to evaluate and defend the methods and protocols appropriate for
preserving its own ESI.
Case 3:25-cv-00507 Document 35 Filed 12/16/25 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>

2
a. The following categories of ESI do not automatically have to be preserved, and if
any Party intends to request the preservation or production of these categories, then
that intention should be discussed as soon as practicable:
i. Active ESI in a format whose preservation requires modification of the
procedures used by the Producing Party in the ordinary course of business
to back up and archive data;
ii. Data in metadata fields that are frequently updated automatically; and
iii. Other forms of ESI whose preservation requires extraordinary affirmative
measures that are not utilized in the ordinary course of business, including
legacy or not reasonably accessible ESI.
b. If a dispute arises regarding the scope of a Party’s obligation to preserve ESI, any
Party may seek an expedited ruling from the Court on the issue. If appropriate, the
Court may require a party who has made an overbroad or disproportionate
preservation demand to bear some or all of the Producing Party’s expenses in
preserving the disputed ESI.
4. Collection. The Producing Party is in the best position to determine the method by which
it will collect ESI. To the extent the Parties have a dispute regarding the method of
collection, the Parties will submit promptly such a dispute to the Court for resolution.
5. Search. The Producing Party is best situated to evaluate the methods and protocols
appropriate for searching its own ESI. ESI searches shall be done using methods and
protocols selected by the Producing Party, if reasonable and likely to locate relevant ESI.
To the extent the Parties have a dispute regarding search methodology, the Parties will
submit promptly such a dispute to the Court for resolution.
Case 3:25-cv-00507 Document 35 Filed 12/16/25 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>

3
6. Form of Production. ESI shall be produced in a form or forms that is reasonably usable
and proportionate, considering such factors as the cost of the form(s) of production, the
volume of ESI at issue, and whether there is a need for searchability and metadata. To the
extent the Parties have a dispute regarding form of production, the Parties will submit
promptly such a dispute to the Court for resolution.
7. Privilege.
a. The production of ESI shall not constitute a waiver of the attorney-client privilege
or work product protection, even though there is a failure to take reasonable steps
to prevent production of information covered by the attorney-client privilege or
work product protection, or a failure to take reasonable steps to rectify the error.
b. Parties are not required to include on privilege logs any document generated after
the filing of the Complaint. If a log is produced, the Parties will discuss forgoing
using traditional document-by-document logs in favor of alternate logging
methods, such as identifying information by category or including only information
from particular metadata fields (e.g., author, recipient, date). Compliance with the
logging provisions of this section shall not constitute a waiver of any privilege or
protection.
c. No provision of this Order limits the authority of the Court to issue a non-waiver
order on other terms and conditions pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502(d).
8. Costs. The costs, including attorney fees and vendor fees, of eDiscovery normally shall
be borne by the Producing Party. However, the Court may apportion the costs of
eDiscovery upon a showing of good cause. The Court, on motion of one of the Parties,
will consider the following non-exclusive factors in determining whether any or all
Case 3:25-cv-00507 Document 35 Filed 12/16/25 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>

4
eDiscovery costs should be borne by the Requesting Party: (1) the extent to which the
request is specifically tailored to discover relevant information; (2) the availability of such
information from other sources; (3) the total cost of production compared to the amount in
controversy; (4) the total cost of production compared to the resources available to each
party; (5) the relative ability of each Party to control costs and its incentive to do so; (6)
the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation; and (7) the relative benefits of
obtaining the information.
9. Court Order. Nothing in this Order limits the authority of the Court to issue an
eDiscovery order on other terms and conditions. This Order may be amended, in whole or
in part, by further Order of the Court.
IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.
Dated: December 15, 2025 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Brittany S. Scott
Brittany S. Scott (pro hac vice)
SMITH & KRIVOSHEY, PC
166 Geary Str STE 1500-1507
San Francisco, CA 94108
(415) 839-7077
brittany@skyclassactions.com
Mark N. Foster (TN Bar No. 023626)
LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC
P.O. Box 869
Madisonville, KY 42431
(270) 213-1303
MFoster@MarkNFoster.com
Counsel for Plaintiff
Case 3:25-cv-00507 Document 35 Filed 12/16/25 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>

5
/s/ Marliese A. Dalton
Marliese A. Dalton (TN Bar No. 040400)
Stephen D. Andrews (pro hac vice)
Kaitlin D. Wetz (pro hac vice)
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
680 Maine Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20024
Telephone: (202) 434-5000
mdalton@wc.com
sandrews@wc.com
kwetz@wc.com
Counsel for Defendant Mars Petcare US,
Inc.
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________________ _____________________________
Date Jeffery S. Frensley
United States Magistrate Judge
December 16, 2025
Case 3:25-cv-00507 Document 35 Filed 12/16/25 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>

6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on December 15, 2025, I electronically filed the foregoing with the
Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notification of such filing to the
following:
Brittany S. Scott
SMITH & KRIVOSHEY, PC
166 Geary Str STE 1500-1507
San Francisco, CA 94108
(415) 839-7077
brittany@skyclassactions.com
Mark N. Foster
LAW OFFICE OF MARK N. FOSTER, PLLC
P.O. Box 869
Madisonville, KY 42431
(270) 213-1303
MFoster@MarkNFoster.com
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Marliese A. Dalton
Marliese A. Dalton (TN Bar No. 040400)
Stephen D. Andrews (pro hac vice)
Kaitlin D. Wetz (pro hac vice)
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
680 Maine Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20024
Telephone: (202) 434-5000
mdalton@wc.com
sandrews@wc.com
kwetz@wc.com
Counsel for Defendant Mars Petcare US,
Inc.
Case 3:25-cv-00507 Document 35 Filed 12/16/25 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>