Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Chen v. Lamps Plus, Inc.

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

May 21, 2019

WEIMIN CHEN, for Himself, as a Private Attorney General, and/or On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff,
LAMPS PLUS, INC., and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants.



         Plaintiff Weimin Chen and Defendant Lamps Plus, Inc. (each a “party” and collectively the “parties”) hereby stipulate to - and respectfully request that the Court enter as an Order - 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.

         3. If the parties are unable to resolve any dispute regarding ESI or arising under this Order, then the parties shall meet and confer within one week of a meet and confer request by any party, and, if the dispute remains unresolved, the parties will resolve the dispute using the expedited joint motion procedure enunciated in Local Civil Rule 37(a)(2). If requested by any party, the parties shall conduct a meet and confer which includes the parties' technical personnel.

         B. Liasons

         The parties have identified liaisons to each other who are and will be knowledgeable about and responsible for discussing their respective ESI. Each eDiscovery liaison will be, or have access to those who are, knowledgeable about the technical aspects of eDiscovery, 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. The eDiscovery liaisons for each of the parties are as follows:

Daniel Hattis eDiscovery Liaison for Plaintiffs
Lauren Doucette eDiscovery Liaison for Defendant

         If the parties need to make modifications to their designated eDiscovery Liaisons, the party effecting the changes shall notify all other parties within 5 business days of the change, including the new contact information for the eDiscovery Liaison.

         C. ESI Disclosures

         Within 30 days of the Court's entry of this stipulation as an Order, each Party shall disclose:

1. Custodians. The six (6) 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. If discovery indicates the existence of one or more potential additional custodians, the parties shall meet and confer regarding the production of discovery from said custodian(s).
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; third-party cloud storage and third-party cloud applications (e.g. Amazon Web Services; Microsoft Azure Cloud Services; Google Cloud, G Suite Apps, and Google Docs; Microsoft Office 365; or Apple iCloud); messaging products such as Slack, Microsoft Teams, Skype; 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. Third-Party Data Sources shall be further defined as data the party custodians have access to, either through login credentials and/or a subscription service, and not data held by third party custodians that are not under the custody, control, or licensed access of the parties.
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).

         D. 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 respect to preservation of ESI, the parties agree as follows:

         1. Absent a showing of good cause by the requesting party, the parties shall not be required to modify the procedures used by them in the ordinary course of business to back-up and archive data; provided, however, that the parties shall ...

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.