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.

Bowen v. CSO Financial, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

June 8, 2017

DUANE BOWEN, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
CSO FINANCIAL, INC., et al., Defendants.

          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC Beth E. Terrell, WSBA #26759 Blythe H. Chandler, WSBA #43387 Elizabeth A. Adams, WSBA #49175 Sam Leonard, WSBA #46498 LAW OFFICE OF PAUL ARONS Attorneys for Plaintiffs

          DAVIS ROTHWELL EARLE & XOCHIHUA, P.C. Suzanne Pierce, WSBA #22733 Patrick Rothwell, WSBA #23878 Keith M. Liguori, WSBA #51501 Attorneys for Defendant J. Michael Unfred, d/b/a J. Michael Unfred LLC

          HASSON LAW, LLC Jeffrey I. Hasson, WSBA #23741 Attorney for Defendants CSO Financial, Inc. and Mary Inscore

          ORDER

          JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter comes before the Court on the parties' agreement regarding discovery of electronically stored information (ESI) (Dkt. No. 13). The parties hereby stipulate to the following provisions:

         A. General Principles

         1. An attorney's zealous representation of a client is not compromised by conducting discovery in a cooperative manner. The failure of counsel or the parties to litigation to cooperate in facilitating and reasonably limiting discovery requests and responses raises litigation costs and contributes to the risk of sanctions.

         2. The proportionality standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) must be applied in each case when formulating a discovery plan. To further the application of the proportionality standard in discovery, requests for production of ESI and related responses should be reasonably targeted, clear, and as specific as possible.

         B. ESI Disclosures

         Within 30 days after the Rule 26(f) conference, or at a later time if agreed to by the parties, each party shall disclose:

         1. Custodians. The five custodians most likely to have discoverable ESI in their possession, custody, or control. The custodians shall be identified by name, title, connection to the instant litigation, and the type of the information under his/her control.

         2. Non-custodial Data Sources. A list of non-custodial data sources (e.g. shared drives, servers, etc.), if any, likely to contain discoverable ESI.

         3. Third-Party Data Sources. A list of third-party data sources, if any, likely to contain discoverable ESI (e.g. third-party email and/or mobile device providers, “cloud” storage, etc.) and, for each such source, the extent to which a party is (or is not) able to preserve information stored in the third-party data source.

         4. Inaccessible Data. A list of data sources, if any, likely to contain discoverable ESI (by type, date, custodian, electronic system or other criteria sufficient to specifically identify the data source) that a party asserts is not ...


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.