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.

Corker v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

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

November 1, 2019

BRUCE CORKER d/b/a RANCHO ALOHA; COLEHOUR BONDERA and MELANIE BONDERA, husband and wife d/b/a KANALANI OHANA FARM; and ROBERT SMITH and CECELIA SMITH, husband and wife d/b/a SMITHFARMS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v.
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation; AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation; HAWAIIAN ISLES KONA COFFEE, LTD., LLC, a Hawaiian limited liability company; COST PLUS/WORLD MARKET, a subsidiary of BED BATH & BEYOND, a New York corporation; BCC ASSETS, LLC d/b/a BOYER'S COFFEE COMPANY, INC., a Colorado corporation; JAVA LLC, a Michigan limited liability company; MULVADI CORPORATION, a Hawaii corporation; COPPER MOON COFFEE, LLC, an Indiana limited liability company; GOLD COFFEE ROASTERS, INC., a Florida corporation; CAMERON'S COFFEE AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation; PACIFIC COFFEE, INC., a Hawaii corporation; THE KROGER CO., an Ohio corporation; WALMART INC., a Delaware corporation; BED BATH & BEYOND INC., a New York corporation; ALBERTSONS COMPANIES INC., a Delaware Corporation; SAFEWAY INC., a Delaware Corporation; MNS LTD., a Hawaii Corporation; MARMAXX OPERATING CORP. d/b/a T.J. MAXX and MARSHALLS, a Delaware corporation; SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET, INC. a Delaware corporation, Defendants.

          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP Attorneys for Defendants Cameron's Coffee and Distribution Company; Gold Coffee Roasters, Inc.; The Kroger Co.; Albertson's Companies Inc.; Safeway Inc.; Walmart, Inc.; The TJX Companies d/b/a T.J. Maxx; Marshalls of MA, Inc. d/b/a Marshalls; Amazon.Com, Inc.; Copper Moon Coffee LLC; and Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. Jaime Drozd Allen, Stephen M. Rummage, Ambika Doran, Jacob M. Harper (pro hac vice) Benjamin J. Robbins.

          KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class Paul Richard Brown, Nathan T. Paine.

          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class Jason L. Lichtman Daniel E. Seltz.

          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP Attorneys for Defendant Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. and Copper Moon Coffee LLC Trenton H. Norris (pro hac vice) Tommy Huynh (pro hac vice).

          CADES SCHUTTE LLP Attorneys for Defendant MNS Ltd., Kelly G. LaPorte, pro hac vice Nathaniel Dang, pro hac vice.

          DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP Attorneys for Defendant Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., J. Michael Keyes, Erin C. Kolter, Brian J. Janura.

          LANE POWELL PC Attorneys for Defendant Hawaiian Isles Kona Coffee Company, Ltd., Costco Wholesale Corporation, CostPlus, Inc. and L&K Coffee Co. LLC, Erin M. Wilson, Tiffany Scott Connors, Jessica Walder.

          BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY, PC Attorneys for Defendant MNS Ltd., Daniel R. Bentson, Owen R. Mooney.

          BUCHALTER A Professional Corporation Attorneys for Defendant Mulvadi Corporation Bradley P. Thoreson.

          WILSON SMITH COCHRAN DICKERSON Attorneys for Defendant Pacific Coffee, Inc., Alfred E. Donohue, Maria E. Sotirhos.

          BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP Attorneys for Defendant Cost Plus, Inc., Marcy J. Bergman (CA Bar No. 75826, pro hac vice) Merrit M. Jones (CA Bar No. 209033, pro hac vice).

          STIPULATED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTOCOL FOR THE PRODUCTION OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION (“ESI”)

          Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge.

         The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik The parties[1] 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

         Within 14 days[2] after the entry of this Order or November 14, 2019, whichever is sooner, each party shall disclose:

         1. Custodians. Plaintiffs and distributor defendants shall disclose up to 5 custodians, retailer defendants (including those with at-issue private label products) shall disclose up to 7 custodians. The parties shall meet and confer if either party believes additional custodians would be proportionate to the needs of the litigation. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). The parties make no further representations or agreements regarding custodians and whether or 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.