Page 1
Case 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Document 88
Filed 02/07/25
ROBERTA L. STEELE, SBN 188198 (CA) MARCIA L. MITCHELL, SBN 18122 (WA) JAMES H. BAKER JR, SBN 291836 (CA) MARIKO M. ASHLEY, SBN 311897 (CA) KENA C. CADOR, SBN 321094 (CA) U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION San Francisco District Office 450 Golden Gate Ave., 5th Floor West P.O. Box 36025 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone No. (650) 684-0950 Fax No. (415) 522-3425 james.baker@eeoc.gov
Attorneys for Plaintiff EEOC
Christina T. Tellado (SBN 298597) ttellado@polsinelli.com Mary Vu (SBN 323088) mvu@polsinelli.com POLSINELLI LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 310-556-1801 Facsimile: 310-556-1802
Page 1 of 16
(Additional counsel listed on next page)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, vs.
TESLA, INC.
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC [PROPOSED] SECOND STIPULATED ORDER RE: DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION FOR STANDARD LITIGATION
Defendant.
[PROPOSED] 2nd STIPULATED ORDER RE DISCOVERY OF ESI
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 2
Case 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Document 88
Filed 02/07/25
Page 2 of 16
Sara A. Begley (admitted pro hac vice) Dana E. Feinstein (admitted pro hac vice) sbegley@polsinelli.com dfeinstein@polsinelli.com POLSINELLI Three Logan Square 1717 Arch St, Suite 2800 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 215-267-3001 Facsimile: 215-267-3002 Tyree P. Jones Jr., SBN 127631 (CA) tjones@polsinelli.com POLSINELLI 1401 I Street, N.W., Washington, DC 2005-3317 Telephone No. (202) 783-3300 Raymond A. Cardozo, SBN 173263 (CA) rcardozo@reedsmith.com REED SMITH LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, California 94105-3659 Telephone No. (415) 543-8700 Fax No. (415) 391-8269 Attorneys for Defendant TESLA, INC.
[PROPOSED] 2nd STIPULATED ORDER RE DISCOVERY OF ESI
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 3
Case 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Document 88
Filed 02/07/25
Page 3 of 16
Pursuant to Pretrial Order No. 2, (ECF 65), Plaintiff U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) and Defendant Tesla, Inc. (Tesla), (collectively, the parties), hereby submit the
following Second Stipulated Order and Proposed Protocol Regarding Electronically Stored
Information.
I.
PURPOSE
This Order will govern discovery of electronically stored information (ESI) in this case as a
supplement to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court’s Guidelines for the Discovery of
Electronically Stored Information, The First Stipulated Order Re: Discovery of Electronically Stored
Information for Standard Litigation (ECF 55), and any other applicable orders and rules.
II.
COOPERATION
The parties are aware of the importance the Court places on cooperation and commit to
cooperate in good faith throughout the matter consistent with this Court’s Guidelines for the
Discovery of ESI.
III.
LIAISON
The parties have identified liaisons to each other who are and will be knowledgeable about
and responsible for discussing their respective ESI. Each e-discovery liaison will be or will have
access to those who are knowledgeable about the technical aspects of e-discovery, including the
location, nature, accessibility, format, collection, search methodologies, and production of ESI in
this matter. The parties will rely on the liaisons, as needed, to confer about ESI and to help resolve
disputes without court intervention.
IV.
PRESERVATION
The parties have discussed their preservation obligations and needs and agree that
preservation of potentially relevant ESI will be reasonable and proportionate. Although this Protocol
envisions the use of electronic search methodologies, see infra, to search for and collect potentially
responsive documents, where a party knows or reasonably should know that information is relevant
and responsive to a document request, it shall not withhold that document from production on the
basis that its electronic search methodology did not otherwise identify the document. Unless
specifically stated, nothing in this stipulation is intended to abrogate or alter the parties’ obligations
[PROPOSED] 2nd STIPULATED ORDER RE DISCOVERY OF ESI
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 4
Case 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Document 88
Filed 02/07/25
Page 4 of 16
with respect to preserving ESI.
1.
Relevant ESI Sources. The parties have identified in Exhibit A (Relevant ESI
Sources) some of the Email, User-Created Files, and Database Systems that they reasonably believe
to contain relevant information during the Temporal Scope of Preservation (see below). To the
extent that the parties identify additional systems for preservation and potential production, or if
upon further investigation, revision to the existing system descriptions is necessary, the parties agree
to identify the additional systems and/or revise existing system descriptions.
2.
Preservation of ESI. The parties shall take reasonable steps to preserve relevant ESI
that is within their possession, custody, or control.
3.
Custodians. The parties have identified in Attachment 2 some of the types of ESI
they believe should be preserved and Attachment 3 some of the general job titles or descriptions of
custodians, for whom they believe ESI should be preserved, e.g., “HR head,” “scientist,” and
“marketing manager.” The parties shall add or remove sources and custodians as reasonably
necessary. In responding to discovery requests, the producing party shall also identify the specific
custodial accounts and ESI sourced searched.
4.
Reasonably Inaccessible Data. If a party declines to collect or search a source that it
reasonably believes to be sources of unique, potentially responsive ESI on the bases that the
materials are not reasonably accessible, that party must notify the other party and meet and confer in
an effort to resolve any disagreements before seeking relief from the Court.
V.
SEARCH
The parties agree that in responding to an initial Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 request, or earlier if
appropriate, they will meet and confer as needed about methods to search ESI to identify ESI that is
subject to production in discovery and filter out ESI that is not subject to discovery.
A.
The Use of Search Terms on Unstructured Data. If the producing party determines
the use of search terms is appropriate to search and collect relevant and/or responsive ESI, the
parties shall collaborate and cooperate in good faith to seek to reach an agreement on search terms to
be used.
The producing party shall develop and share with the requesting party a list of proposed
[PROPOSED] 2nd STIPULATED ORDER RE DISCOVERY OF ESI
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 5
Case 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Document 88
Filed 02/07/25
Page 5 of 16
search terms, including (1) overall number of documents in the document collection against which
the search was conducted; (2) the “hit count” of the raw number of documents identified per search
term; (3) the total number of unique documents with hits across all search terms and documents
within families containing such unique documents (i.e., the review universe if all terms were to be
accepted and reviewed). For any complex Boolean search strings, the report will provide information
both for the search string as a whole as well as each individual component of the Boolean search
string to help counsel analyze the effectiveness of search terms.
At the same time, if the producing party is using a tool other than Relativity, the producing party shall also provide information to the requesting party regarding the syntax and search
capabilities and limitations of its ESI tool with respect to search terms (e.g., ordering of search terms
and parentheses, what wildcard options are available, stemming capabilities, noise words, Boolean
capabilities, etc.) sufficient for the requesting party to understand the search terms proposed and to
offer counterproposals to them. The producing party shall provide, concurrently with the Report,
sufficient information for the requesting party to propose refined search terms, such as identifying
any groups of nonrelevant emails upon which the search terms are hitting. The parties agree that the
process will collaborative and iterative.
1.
The requesting party shall provide any revisions or additions to the producing party’s
proposed search terms (counterproposals), if any, within a reasonable time after receipt of proposed
search terms from the producing party.
2.
After receipt of the first set of revisions or additions from the requesting party (as set
forth above), the producing party will identify which of the requesting party’s proposed search terms
the producing party agrees to use, and which terms it rejects, and shall propose alternatives, if any, to
counterproposals to which it objects. The producing party shall at the same time supply a Search
Terms Hit Report (STH Report), as described in subsection (4) below, for all search terms that were
accepted, rejected, and all proposed alternatives. Upon request, the producing party shall confer with
the requesting party concerning the producing party’s reasoning behind why particular search terms
are not acceptable and possible alternative search terms.
3.
The parties shall reasonably repeat the process in subsection (1) and (2) in good faith
[PROPOSED] 2nd STIPULATED ORDER RE DISCOVERY OF ESI
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 6
Case 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Document 88
Filed 02/07/25
Page 6 of 16
to come to a final agreement regarding search terms. The parties will meet and confer regarding
disputed search terms and STH Reports as needed. The parties shall meet and confer to attempt to
develop a mutually agreeable means of evaluating the effectiveness of disputed search terms in
identifying responsive documents, such as a responsiveness review of a statistically significant
random sample of the documents hit by a disputed term.
4.
STH Report: STH Reports will be provided in Excel (or other format as agreed to by
the parties). An STH Report should: (a) exclude from the number of hits any duplicates; (b) provide
the number of documents hit by the search term, including family members; and (c) the number of
unique documents hit by each search term (i.e., the number of documents hit by that search string
and no others, and not previously produced in this litigation).
5.
Validation: Once the parties have agreed to a list of search terms subject to the
process outlined above, the parties shall meet and confer to attempt to develop a mutually agreed
methodology to determine effectiveness of search terms in identifying responsive documents. The
parties shall meet and confer regarding whether further modification to the final set of search terms
is necessary.
6.
The mere fact that a document is hit or captured by the application of any agreed
upon search terms does not mean that such document is necessarily responsive to any propounded
discovery request or is otherwise relevant to this litigation.
7.
If after finalization of search terms or other parameters a party determines in good
faith that additional search terms or parameters are necessary to identify responsive information or
determines that modifications to search terms or other parameters are necessary to avoid
disproportionate or undue burden and expense associated with the review and production of the
results of those search terms, counsel will meet and confer in an effort to agree on additional or
modified terms after an initial production.
B.
The default form for production of database information is “fielded tables” where each row
Structured Database Systems
represents a database record and each column represents a single data field, such as a Microsoft
Excel spreadsheet or delimited text file. The producing party will provide a description of the fields
[PROPOSED] 2nd STIPULATED ORDER RE DISCOVERY OF ESI
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 7
Case 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Document 88
Filed 02/07/25
Page 7 of 16
contained in their structured databases, including any codes used. Upon review of the report, the
requesting party may make reasonable requests for additional information to explain the database
schema, codes, abbreviations, and different report formats or to request specific data from identified
fields.
C.
For custodians identified in Attachment 3 and employed by either party, or ordered by the
Custodial Mobile Device and Social Media Data
Court, a producing party will take reasonable steps to identify whether any unique, responsive,
discoverable communications are located on any mobile device or social media accounts in the
“possession, custody, or control” (as defined under the Federal Rules and case law) of the producing
party. The producing party is obligated to disclose if it takes the position that a custodian possesses a
mobile device or social media account that was used for work purposes and is not within the
producing party’s possession, custody or control. The producing party shall provide an explanation
and support for its position that a mobile device is not within the producing party’s possession,
custody, or control.
Information produced from mobile devices and social media may be produced as screenshots
in the first instance, provided that requesting parties reserve the right to then request native
productions of such data and/or forensic examinations if they doubt the authenticity of any such
evidence or for other good cause. The parties agree to meet and confer in such instances.
VI.
PROCESSING, FILTERING AND REVIEW
The processing and review of Unstructured ESI may consist of any of the following
processes selected by the producing party: (1) loading of ESI into a review platform; (2) the
application of file type, date, and other metadata filters; (3) the use of search terms, as outlined infra
in Section VI(A); (4) the use of analytics technologies, including deduplication, email threading,
clustering, filtering, categorization, and technology assisted review/ predictive coding and Gen AI
technology, as outlined infra in Sections VI(C)-(E); and (5) attorney review for responsiveness.
Parties will review the results of the above efforts for privilege or other protection from
disclosure and all responsive, relevant, non-privileged ESI shall be produced in the format described
below in Section VII.
[PROPOSED] 2nd STIPULATED ORDER RE DISCOVERY OF ESI
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 8
Case 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Document 88
Filed 02/07/25
Page 8 of 16
A.
If the producing party finds it appropriate to apply search terms to cull the collected ESI
The Use of Search Terms on Unstructured ESI to Filter and Review
before review, the parties shall follow the process outlined in Section V(A), supra.
B.
Producing parties may utilize an ESI search process to identify categories of documents,
Email Domain Exclusions
such as emails from domains typically associated with junk email, such as retailer advertising, and
newsletters or alerts from non-industry sources. Absent compelling circumstances and any message,
attachment or other electronically stored information that has been identified by a spam or virus
filter shall be treated as per se non-responsive and a party shall not be required to preserve, review,
or produce such ESI.
C.
The parties also recognize the availability of a variety of search tools and methodologies,
Technology Assisted Review/Predictive Coding.
including but not limited to Technology Assisted Review (TAR) and Gen AI tools. Tesla has
notified plaintiff’s counsel that it may use TAR and/or GEN AI tools to further analyze documents
for relevance after search terms are used to narrow the starting document universe to exclude
documents not likely to be relevant. If the producing party intends to use TAR, GEN AI, or similar
advanced analytics as a substitute for attorney responsiveness review, the parties agree to meet and
confer in good faith to attempt to reach agreement about the technology and process that a producing
party proposes to use to identify responsive ESI and a statistically sound methodology to determine
the recall rate and other measures of the effectiveness of the tool and processes in identifying
responsive documents. The producing party shall make disclosures regarding its tools and processes
necessary to make the meet and confers meaningful and for the requesting party to negotiate on an
informed basis.
If, prior to commencement of negotiations over search terms, a producing party intends, or is
likely, to use both search terms and TAR (or similar advanced analytics), it shall notify the
requesting party prior to commencement of search term negotiations. If a producing party decides to
employ TAR or similar advanced analytics during, or after the conclusion of, negotiations over
search terms, it shall promptly notify the requesting party before commencing any review.
[PROPOSED] 2nd STIPULATED ORDER RE DISCOVERY OF ESI
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 9
Case 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Document 88
Filed 02/07/25
Page 9 of 16
D.
The parties may utilize email threading technology in their review to thread email messages
Email Threading
where the content of those messages, and any attachments, are wholly contained within a later email
message in the thread (Inclusive Emails).
VII.
PRODUCTION FORMATS
The parties agree to the format for production as described herein as well as Exhibit A.
A.
Hard copy documents shall be scanned to single-page TIFF Group IV format (300 DPI
Paper Documents
resolution) with corresponding searchable OCR text and be logically unitized. The file name for the
TIFF image shall be the Bates/PageID Number. Scanned documents shall also be converted into
searchable text using optical character recognition (OCR), extracted, and saved as a text file named
with the Bates/PageID Number. The OCR shall include the Bates/PageID number for each page. The
load file shall include a field for the OCR/Text file path.
B.
The parties will produce documents in accordance with the specifications identified in this
Email and User-Created Files
section. ESI will generally be produced in single-page TIFF format (300 DPI resolution) with
corresponding document-level extracted text and a delimited DAT file containing the metadata fields
outlined in Exhibit A.
8.
All spreadsheet and presentation files (e.g., Excel, PowerPoint) shall be produced in
native format with an associated placeholder image, and a native file path contained in the DAT file
to the native file.
9.
All hidden text (e.g., track changes, hidden columns, mark-ups, notes) shall be
expanded and rendered in the image file.
10.
All embedded objects (Word documents, Excel spreadsheets, .wav files, etc.) that are
found within a file—excepting automatically generated signature graphics and logos to the extent
they can be isolated and excluded—shall be extracted and produced. For purposes of production, the
embedded files shall be treated as attachments to the original file, with the parent/child relationship
preserved.
[PROPOSED] 2nd STIPULATED ORDER RE DISCOVERY OF ESI
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 10
Case 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
11.
Document 88
Filed 02/07/25
Page 10 of 16
The parties agree to take reasonable steps based on industry standards to open
password-protected or encrypted files, including using commercially accessible software as well as
requesting passwords from those individuals which the Parties represent. If there are likely
responsive encrypted or password protected documents, which the producing party has been unable
to, after reasonable efforts, to locate the password or decrypt, the parties shall meet and confer. If a
party believes that removing password protection is unduly burdensome, the parties shall meet and
confer.
12.
The producing party shall disclose any substantive gaps, errors, or exceptions in the
collected or processed ESI.
C.
Parent-child relationships (association between an attachment and its parent document) shall
Family Relationships and Modern Attachments
be preserved. The attachment(s) shall be produced adjacent to the parent document, in terms of Bates
numbers, with the first attachment being named with the next sequential number after the parent, and
any additional attachment(s) sequentially numbered after that first attachment. The Parties agree that
if any part of a Document or its attachments is responsive, the entire Document and its attachments
will be produced as responsive, except any attachments withheld and logged based on privilege.
Withheld documents should be replaced with slip sheets. The parties agree to meet and confer if
either party proposes to redact any documents on any basis other than privilege.
The producing party shall use available Microsoft O365 tools to produce hyperlinked
documents and “Modern attachments” contained within emails or other Unstructured Data in a
reasonably usable form that will identify the connection between the “parent” message (the
originating message containing the modern attachment) and the modern attachment, to the extent the
producing party’s internal systems reasonably allow for automated collection and identification of
such Modern attachments. The producing party shall meet and confer with the requesting party to
discuss proposed formats of production for modern attachments. To the extent that a unique modern
attachments points to a drive, folder, or other ESI that is not an individual file, parties shall meet and
confer to discuss production.
[PROPOSED] 2nd STIPULATED ORDER RE DISCOVERY OF ESI
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 11
Case 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Document 88
Filed 02/07/25
Page 11 of 16
D.
Short Messages, including text, Microsoft Teams, WhatsApp, and Slack messages, if any,
Short Messages
shall be produced in a searchable format that reasonably preserves presentational features of the
original messages, such as emojis, images, video files, animations, and the like. In general, Short
Messages should be produced in the same format as that in which they were exported for purposes of
collection, search, or review.
E.
Prior to any production of responsive data from mobile devices of custodians, e.g., party
Custodial Mobile Device Data
employees, the producing party shall discuss the potential export formats and the method and tool used for extraction.
F.
Documents that contain redactions, including any associated family members, will be
Redacted Documents
produced in single-page TIFF format (300 DPI resolution) with corresponding document-level
extracted text and a delimited DAT file containing the metadata fields outlined in Exhibit A to the
extent that such metadata fields are not part of the redaction. Documents produced with redactions
shall identify in some manner (such as through highlighting in black or through the use of redaction
boxes) the location and extent of redacted information. To the extent a party deems production of
redacted TIFF images of Excel spreadsheets significantly degrades the usability of the document, the
parties agree to meet and confer regarding alternate production methodologies of the redacted
information.
VIII. PHASING
The parties will meet and confer as may be necessary regarding additional phasing discovery.
IX.
DOCUMENTS PROTECTED FROM DISCOVERY
A.
The following categories of documents need not be included on a privilege log:
1.
Attorney-client privilege:
a. Communications only between or amongst Tesla’s in-house and outside counsel that post-date the filing of the Commissioner’s Charge;
[PROPOSED] 2nd STIPULATED ORDER RE DISCOVERY OF ESI
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 12
Case 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Document 88
Filed 02/07/25
Page 12 of 16
b. Communications only between or amongst EEOC Enforcement Unit and Legal
Unit that post-date the filing of the Commissioner’s Charge.
c. Communications between EEOC Legal Unit and potentially aggrieved individuals
that post-date the Letter of Determination, unless the EEOC may rely on such
communications to support its claims.
2.
Attorney work product:
a. Documents created by Tesla’s in-house or outside counsels that post-date the
filing of the Commissioner’s Charge, unless Tesla may rely on such documents to
support its defenses; and,
b. Documents created by EEOC legal unit or enforcement unit personnel that post-
date the filing of the Commissioner’s Charge; unless EEOC may rely on such
documents to support its claims.
B.
The parties agree that any privilege logs required to be produced in accordance with Section
Privilege Logs
F of the Court’s Civil Standing Orders shall be due within 45 days after the underlying discovery
responses are due, absent stipulation or Court order. The log shall be produced in an electronic and
easily searchable and manipulable format (such as a CSV file).
X.
MODIFICATION
This Stipulated Order may also be modified by another Stipulated Order of the parties or by
the Court. If the parties are unable to agree, need further clarification on any issue relating to the
preservation, collection, or production of electronically stored information, or seek modification of
this Order, the parties agree to promptly pursue informal discovery dispute resolution procedures in
accordance with Section F of the Court’s Civil Standing Orders. Entering into this Stipulated Order
does not prejudice the parties’ rights to seek modification(s) of this Stipulated Order or additional
ESI related orders.
IT IS SO STIPULATED, through Counsel of Record.
Dated: February 7, 2025
[PROPOSED] 2nd STIPULATED ORDER RE DISCOVERY OF ESI
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 13
Case 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Document 88
Filed 02/07/25
Page 13 of 16
ROBERTA STEELE
Regional Attorney
KARLA GILBRIDE
General Counsel
MARCIA L. MITCHELL
Assistant Regional Trial Attorney
CHRISTOPHER LAGE
Deputy General Counsel
JAMES H. BAKER
Senior Trial Attorney
Office of the General Counsel 131 M Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20507
MARIKO ASHLEY
Senior Trial Attorney KENA C. CADOR Senior Trial Attorney
BY:
/s/ James H. Baker U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION San Francisco District Office 450 Golden Gate Ave., 5th Floor West P.O. Box 36025 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone (650) 684-0950 james.baker@eeoc.gov
Attorneys for Plaintiff EEOC
BY:
/s/ Tyree P. Jones, Jr.
Tyree P. Jones Jr., SBN 127631 (CA) POLSINELLI 1401 I Street, N.W., Washington, DC 2005-3317 Telephone No. (202) 783-3300 Attorneys for Defendant Tesla Inc. IT IS SO ORDERED that the forgoing Stipulation is approved.
Dated: February 7, 2025
HON.
HO ON.
N JACQUELIN S. CORLEY
EY Y UNITED STATE T S DISTRICT JUD DGE STATES JUDGE
[PROPOSED] 2nd STIPULATED ORDER RE DISCOVERY OF ESI
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 14
Case 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Document 88
Filed 02/07/25
Page 14 of 16
LOCAL RULE 5-1(i)(3) ATTESTATION I, James H. Baker, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file the ESI Protocol. In compliance with Local Rule 5-1(i)(3), I hereby attest that Tyree Jones concurs in this filing.
Dated: February 7, 2025 /s/ James H. Baker James H. Baker, Senior Trial Attorney
[PROPOSED] 2nd STIPULATED ORDER RE DISCOVERY OF ESI
Case No.: 3:23-cv-04984-JSC
Page 15
Case 3:23-cv-04984-JSC Document 88 Filed 02/07/25 Page 15 of 16 II. Relevant ESI Sources for Defendant:
A.
Unstructured Data 1.
Email: Tesla’s email is maintained on Microsoft Office Outlook system.
2.
Teams: Teams messages are maintained on Tesla’s Microsoft Office System. However, Microsoft Teams was launched at Tesla in 2018. Email and Teams messages are maintained in the same .pst file for each user.
3.
User-Created Files: User files were occasionally maintained on a network server and are sometimes uploaded and shared via OneDrive.
4.
Devices: Some Tesla employees are issued laptops and cellular phones. However, Production Associates are generally not issued laptops or cellular phones. Eligible employees can elect to use their personal cellphone or be subject to an approval process to have one issued by Tesla.
B.
Structured Database Systems 1.
Potentially relevant employee information is currently maintained in MySQL database. Employment documents are in an internal storage called DMS. Both are data sources for the Inside Tesla application.
2.
Internal complaints or issues raised by employees are maintained in Convercent [since mid-2017] and, more recently, CaseIQ [since mid-2023].
Page 16
Case 3:23-cv-04984-JSC Document 88 Filed 02/07/25 Page 16 of 16 Attachment 2 RELEVANT ESI CUSTODIANS I.
Relevant Custodians for Defendant:
1.
Human Resources and Employee Relations Personnel of Potential Aggrieved Individuals at the Fremont Factory.
2.
Supervisors of Potential Aggrieved Individuals at the Fremont Factory. 3.
Any specific Tesla employee who is alleged by the EEOC to have participated in any improper or illegal acts. Tesla hereby requests that the EEOC identify any or all such individuals as soon as practicable.
4.
Decision-makers regarding the discipline and/or termination of any Potential Aggrieved Individuals at the Fremont Factory.
5.
Decision-makers regarding the implementation of EEO policies, practices, and procedures at the Fremont Factory.
II.
Relevant Custodians for EEOC 1.
EEOC Investigative Personnel 2.
Unrepresented PAIs whom the EEOC will rely upon as witnesses or declarants in their case against Tesla.
Back to 
