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.

Southrest Inc v. Hyatt Hotels Corporation

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

June 26, 2019

SOUTHREST, INC., a Washington corporation, dba The Woodmark; CARILLON PROPERTIES, a Washington general partnership Plaintiffs,
v.
HYATT HOTELS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; DH KIRKLAND MANAGEMENT LLC, a Washington limited liability company; CORALTREE HOSPITALITY GROUP LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendants. DH KIRKLAND MANAGEMENT LLC, Counterclaim Plaintiff,
v.
CARILLON PROPERTIES, Counterclaim Defendant.

          SUMMIT LAW GROUP, PLLC Philip S. McCune, WSBA #21081 Alexander A. Baehr, WSBA #25320 Matthew W. Walch (pro hac vice) LATHAM & WATKINS LLP Attorneys for Defendant Hyatt Hotels Corporation

          TONKON TORP LLP Steven D. Olson, WSBA #39086 Paul Conable, WSBA #43587 Jon P. Stride, WSBA #34686 Attorneys for Plaintiff

          HARRIGAN LEYH FARMER & THOMSEN LLP Tyler L. Farmer, WSBA #39912 Shane P. Cramer, WSBA #35099 And Callie A. Bjurstrom (pro hac vice) PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP Jeffrey D. Wexler (pro hac vice) PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP Attorneys for Defendant CoralTree Hospitality Group LLC

          STIPULATED AGREEMENT REGARDING DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION AND [PROPOSESD] ORDER

          HONORABLE JAMES L. ROBART

         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)(2)(C) 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(a)(1) disclosures, each party shall disclose:

         1. Custodians. The five custodians, to the extent applicable, who are currently 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 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.