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.

Phytelligence, Inc. v. Washington State University

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

June 29, 2018

PHYTELLIGENCE, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY, Defendant.

          WILLIAMS, KASTNER & GIBBS PLLC Daniel A. Brown, WSBA #22028 Daniel J. Velloth, WSBA #44379 Blair I. Fassburg, WSBA #41207 Attorneys for Plaintiff Phytelligence, Inc.

          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP Stuart R. Dunwoody, WSBA #13948 Conner G. Peretti, WSBA #46575 Attorneys for Defendant Washington State University.

          AGREEMENT 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 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 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 July 9, 2018, 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 reasonably accessible under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)(B).

         C. Preservation of ESI

         The parties acknowledge that they have a common law obligation to take reasonable and proportional steps to preserve discoverable information in the party's possession, custody or control. With ...


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.