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.

In re Juno Therapeutics, Inc.

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

August 8, 2017

In re JUNO THERAPEUTICS, INC.

          Cliff Cantor LAW OFFICES OF CLIFFORD A. CANTOR, P.C. Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel.

          POMERANTZ LLP Patrick V. Dahlstrom Leigh H. Smollar Omar Jafri POMERANTZ LLP Jeremy A. Lieberman J. Alexander Hood II Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel.

          Gregory L. Watts Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. Nina F. Locker, pro hac vice Ignacio E. Salceda, pro hac vice Joni Ostler, pro hac vice Daniel Slifkin, pro hac vice Karin A. DeMasi, pro hac vice Lauren M. Rosenberg, pro hac vice CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP Counsel for Defendants Juno Therapeutics, Inc., Hans E. Bishop, Steven D. Harr, and Mark J. Gilbert.

          STIPULATION REGARDING DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION AND ORDER

          RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         The parties hereby stipulate to the following provisions regarding the discovery of electronically stored information (“ESI”) in this matter:

         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 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 Fed.R.Civ.P. 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

         By August 14, 2017, each party shall disclose:

1. Custodians. The 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 ...

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.