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.

B.F. v. Amazon.Com Inc.

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

November 13, 2019

B.F. and A.A., minors, by and through their guardian Joey Fields, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and A2Z DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants.

          For Plaintiffs and the Putative Class QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Lauren M. Hudson, Andrew H. Schapiro Stephen Swedlow QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Ashley C. Keller Travis D. Lenkner J. Dominick Larry KELLER LENKNER LLC Warren D. Postman KELLER LENKNER LLC

          For Defendants, AMAZON.COM, INC. and A2Z DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC. FENWICK & WEST LLP Jeffrey A. Ware, Laurence F. Pulgram Tyler G. Newby Molly R. Melcher Armen N. Nercessian Avery L. Brown Mary M. Griffin FENWICK & WEST LLP

          HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES JUDGE

          AGREEMENT REGARDING DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION AND ORDER

          MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate 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. As provided in LCR 26(f), 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 30 days of entry of this Order, or at a later time if agreed to by the parties, each party shall disclose:

         1. Custodians. The ten 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 the custodian's control.

         2. Non-custodial Data Sources. A list of non-custodial data sources (e.g., shared drives, servers), 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 providers, mobile device providers, cloud storage) 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. ESI Discovery Procedures

         1. On-site inspection of electronic media. Such an inspection shall not be required absent a demonstration by the requesting party of specific need ...


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.