In Re Salesforce Customers Security Incident Litigation

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IN RE SALESFORCE CUSTOMERS
SECURITY INCIDENTS LITIGATION
This Document Relates To:
All Actions
Case No. 25-cv-07232-JSC
PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 1: CASE
SCHEDULE THROUGH CLASS
CERTIFICATION HEARING AND
OTHER MATTERS
Following the initial case management conference held on October 14, 2026, the Court
ORDERS as follows:
A. Case Deadlines Through Class Certification
Class Certification Motion and Related Expert Reports: September 10, 2027
Opposition to Class Certification and Related Expert Reports: November 16, 2027
Class Certification Motion Reply and Expert Rebuttal Reports: January 10, 2028
Class Certification Daubert Motions: February 7, 2028
Class Certification Daubert Oppositions: February 21, 2028
Class Certification Daubert Replies: February 28, 2028
Class Certification Hearing: April 6, 2028 at 10 am
Each side may file one Daubert motion, not to exceed 25 pages, that addresses all expert
testimony the party seeks to exclude. The opposition is similarly limited to 25 pages, with replies
limited to 15 pages.
The Court will hold a further case management conference on December 9, 2026 at 2:00
p.m. via Zoom video. An updated joint case management conference statement that only discusses
new information is due one week in advance. The statement shall not exceed 10 pages, excluding
Case 3:25-cv-07232-JSC Document 134 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
signature blocks, and should address how class certification expert depositions will be handled.
B. Protective Order Dispute
The Court adopts Defendants’ proposal.
C. Electronic Discovery Order Dispute
1. Preservation
The Court adopts Defendants’ proposal. But during the meet and confer process,
Defendants may need to provide more information about certain custodians. Ultimately it is
Defendants’ obligation to preserve all potentially relevant information.
2. Search Methodology and Technology-Assisted or AI-Assisted Review
The Court adopts Defendants’ proposal; however, upon request, the producing party shall
identified whether it used TAR or AI-assisted review. Further, during the meet and confer process
about a production, more granular information may need to be provided to understand whether the
search and production is sufficient. Defendants have agreed not to categorically exclude
validation.
3. Email Threading
The Court adopts Defendants’ proposal.
4. Rule 502(d) Stipulation
The Court adopts the parties’ stipulation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 14, 2026
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-07232-JSC Document 134 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 2