United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
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,
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.
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.
TUTTLE CAMPBELL Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed
Class Paul Richard Brown, Nathan T. Paine.
CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP Attorneys for
Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class Jason L. Lichtman Daniel E.
& 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).
SCHUTTE LLP Attorneys for Defendant MNS Ltd., Kelly G.
LaPorte, pro hac vice Nathaniel Dang, pro hac vice.
& WHITNEY LLP Attorneys for Defendant Sprouts Farmers
Market, Inc., J. Michael Keyes, Erin C. Kolter, Brian J.
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.
SMITH COCHRAN DICKERSON Attorneys for Defendant Pacific
Coffee, Inc., Alfred E. Donohue, Maria E. Sotirhos.
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
S. Lasnik United States District Judge.
Honorable Robert S. Lasnik The parties hereby stipulate
to the following provisions regarding the discovery of
electronically stored information (“ESI”) in this
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.
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.
14 days after the entry of this Order or November
14, 2019, whichever is sooner, each party shall disclose:
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 ...