The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE 7
8 9 BRUCE CORKER d/b/a RANCHO ALOHA; Case No. 2:19-cv-00290-RSL COLEHOUR BONDERA and MELANIE 10 BONDERA, husband and wife d/b/a 11 KANALANI OHANA FARM; and ROBERT STIPULATED MOTION FOR ENTRY SMITH and CECELIA SMITH, husband and OF PROTOCOL FOR THE 12 wife d/b/a SMITHFARMS, on behalf of PRODUCTION OF ELECTRONICALLY themselves and others similarly situated, STORED INFORMATION (“ESI”) 13 Plaintiffs, 14 v. 15 16 COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation; AMAZON.COM, 17 INC., a Delaware corporation; HAWAIIAN ISLES KONA COFFEE, LTD., LLC, a 18 Hawaiian limited liability company; COST PLUS/WORLD MARKET, a subsidiary of 19 BED BATH & BEYOND, a New York 20 corporation; BCC ASSETS, LLC d/b/a BOYER’S COFFEE COMPANY, INC., a 21 Colorado corporation; JAVA LLC, a Michigan limited liability company; 22 MULVADI CORPORATION, a Hawaii corporation; COPPER MOON COFFEE, 23 LLC, an Indiana limited liability company; 24 GOLD COFFEE ROASTERS, INC., a Florida corporation; CAMERON’S COFFEE 25 AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation; PACIFIC COFFEE, 26 INC., a Hawaii corporation; THE KROGER CO., an Ohio corporation; WALMART INC., 1 a Delaware corporation; BED BATH & 2 BEYOND INC., a New York corporation; ALBERTSONS COMPANIES INC., a 3 Delaware Corporation; SAFEWAY INC., a Delaware Corporation; MNS LTD., a Hawaii 4 Corporation; MARMAXX OPERATING CORP. d/b/a T.J. MAXX and MARSHALLS, 5 a Delaware corporation; SPROUTS 6 FARMERS MARKET, INC. a Delaware corporation, 7 Defendants. 8 The parties1 hereby stipulate to the following provisions regarding the discovery of 9 electronically stored information (“ESI”) in this matter: 10 A. General Principles 11 1. An attorney’s zealous representation of a client is not compromised by conducting 12 discovery in a cooperative manner. The failure of counsel or the parties to litigation to cooperate 13 in facilitating and reasonably limiting discovery requests and responses raises litigation costs and 14 contributes to the risk of sanctions. 15 2. The proportionality standard set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) must be applied 16 in each case when formulating a discovery plan. To further the application of the proportionality 17 standard in discovery, requests for production of ESI and related responses should be reasonably 18 targeted, clear, and as specific as possible. 19 B. ESI Disclosures 20 Within 14 days2 after the entry of this Order or November 14, 2019, whichever is sooner, each 21 22 1 The “parties” and “defendants” include all parties to this case and defendants, except 23 for BCC Assets, LLC d/b/a Boyer’s Coffee Company, Inc. 2 Except for (1) Kroger, who will have 30 days after the entry of this Order or December 24 2, 2019, whichever is sooner, to disclose the information required in Section B for its Harris Teeter brand; (2) Albertsons and Safeway who will have until December 9, 2019 to disclose the 25 information required in Section B; and (3) Amazon, who has 30 days after the entry of this Order 26 or December 2, 2019, whichever is sooner, to disclose the information required in Section B. 1 party shall disclose: 2 1. Custodians. Plaintiffs and distributor defendants shall disclose up to 5 custodians, 3 retailer defendants (including those with at-issue private label products) shall disclose up to 7 4 custodians. The parties shall meet and confer if either party believes additional custodians would 5 be proportionate to the needs of the litigation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The parties make no 6 further representations or agreements regarding custodians and whether or not they should be 7 limited or expanded. This stipulated ESI order does not create a presumptive limit on custodians 8 for any party. 9 2. Non-custodial Data Sources. A list of non-custodial data sources (e.g. shared drives, 10 servers, etc.), if any, likely to contain discoverable ESI. 11 3. Third-Party Data Sources. A list of third-party data sources, if any, likely to 12 contain discoverable ESI (e.g. third-party email and/or mobile device providers, “cloud” 13 storage, etc.) and, for each such source, the extent to which a party is (or is not) able to 14 preserve information stored in the third-party data source. 15 4. Inaccessible Data. A list of data sources, if any, likely to contain discoverable ESI 16 (by type, date, custodian, electronic system or other criteria sufficient to specifically 17 identify the data source) that a party asserts is not reasonably accessible under Fed. R. Civ. 18 P. 26(b)(2)(B). 19 C. Preservation of ESI 20 The parties acknowledge that they have a common law obligation to take reasonable and 21 proportional steps to preserve discoverable information in the party’s possession, custody or 22 control. With respect to preservation of ESI, the parties agree as follows: 23 1. Absent a showing of good cause by the requesting party, the parties shall not be 24 required to modify the procedures used by them in the ordinary course of business to back-up 25 and archive data; provided, however, that the parties shall preserve all discoverable ESI in 26 their possession, custody or control. 1 2. All parties shall supplement their disclosures in accordance with Rule 26(e) with 2 discoverable ESI responsive to a particular discovery request or mandatory disclosure where 3 that data is created after a disclosure or response is made (unless excluded under (C)(3) or 4 (D)(1)-(2) below). 5 3. Absent a showing of good cause by the requesting party, the following categories of 6 ESI need not be preserved: 7 a. Deleted, slack, fragmented, or other data only accessible by forensics. b. Random access memory (RAM), temporary files, or other ephemeral data 8 that are difficult to preserve without disabling the operating system. 9 c. On-line access data such as temporary internet files, history, cache, cookies, and the like. 10 d. Data in metadata fields that are frequently updated automatically, such as last- 11 opened dates (see also Section (E)(5)). 12 e. Back-up data that are substantially duplicative of data that are more accessible elsewhere. 13 f. Server, system or network logs. 14 g. Data remaining from systems no longer in use that is unintelligible on the systems in use. 15 h. Electronic data (e.g. email, calendars, contact data, and notes) sent to or from 16 mobile devices (e.g., iPhone, iPad, Android, and Blackberry devices), provided that a copy of all such electronic data is routinely saved elsewhere (such as on a 17 server, laptop, desktop computer, or “cloud” storage). 18 D. Privilege 19 1. With respect to privileged or work-product information generated after the filing of the 20 complaint, parties are not required to include any such information in privilege logs. 21 2. Activities undertaken in compliance with the duty to preserve information are protected 22 from disclosure and discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A) and (B). 23 3. The production of privileged or work-product protected documents, electronically stored 24 information ("ESI") or information is not a waiver of the privilege or protection from discovery 25 in this case or in any other federal or state proceeding. This Order shall be interpreted to provide 26 the maximum protection allowed by Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE 7
8 9 BRUCE CORKER d/b/a RANCHO ALOHA; Case No. 2:19-cv-00290-RSL COLEHOUR BONDERA and MELANIE 10 BONDERA, husband and wife d/b/a 11 KANALANI OHANA FARM; and ROBERT STIPULATED MOTION FOR ENTRY SMITH and CECELIA SMITH, husband and OF PROTOCOL FOR THE 12 wife d/b/a SMITHFARMS, on behalf of PRODUCTION OF ELECTRONICALLY themselves and others similarly situated, STORED INFORMATION (“ESI”) 13 Plaintiffs, 14 v. 15 16 COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, a Washington corporation; AMAZON.COM, 17 INC., a Delaware corporation; HAWAIIAN ISLES KONA COFFEE, LTD., LLC, a 18 Hawaiian limited liability company; COST PLUS/WORLD MARKET, a subsidiary of 19 BED BATH & BEYOND, a New York 20 corporation; BCC ASSETS, LLC d/b/a BOYER’S COFFEE COMPANY, INC., a 21 Colorado corporation; JAVA LLC, a Michigan limited liability company; 22 MULVADI CORPORATION, a Hawaii corporation; COPPER MOON COFFEE, 23 LLC, an Indiana limited liability company; 24 GOLD COFFEE ROASTERS, INC., a Florida corporation; CAMERON’S COFFEE 25 AND DISTRIBUTION COMPANY, a Minnesota corporation; PACIFIC COFFEE, 26 INC., a Hawaii corporation; THE KROGER CO., an Ohio corporation; WALMART INC., 1 a Delaware corporation; BED BATH & 2 BEYOND INC., a New York corporation; ALBERTSONS COMPANIES INC., a 3 Delaware Corporation; SAFEWAY INC., a Delaware Corporation; MNS LTD., a Hawaii 4 Corporation; MARMAXX OPERATING CORP. d/b/a T.J. MAXX and MARSHALLS, 5 a Delaware corporation; SPROUTS 6 FARMERS MARKET, INC. a Delaware corporation, 7 Defendants. 8 The parties1 hereby stipulate to the following provisions regarding the discovery of 9 electronically stored information (“ESI”) in this matter: 10 A. General Principles 11 1. An attorney’s zealous representation of a client is not compromised by conducting 12 discovery in a cooperative manner. The failure of counsel or the parties to litigation to cooperate 13 in facilitating and reasonably limiting discovery requests and responses raises litigation costs and 14 contributes to the risk of sanctions. 15 2. The proportionality standard set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) must be applied 16 in each case when formulating a discovery plan. To further the application of the proportionality 17 standard in discovery, requests for production of ESI and related responses should be reasonably 18 targeted, clear, and as specific as possible. 19 B. ESI Disclosures 20 Within 14 days2 after the entry of this Order or November 14, 2019, whichever is sooner, each 21 22 1 The “parties” and “defendants” include all parties to this case and defendants, except 23 for BCC Assets, LLC d/b/a Boyer’s Coffee Company, Inc. 2 Except for (1) Kroger, who will have 30 days after the entry of this Order or December 24 2, 2019, whichever is sooner, to disclose the information required in Section B for its Harris Teeter brand; (2) Albertsons and Safeway who will have until December 9, 2019 to disclose the 25 information required in Section B; and (3) Amazon, who has 30 days after the entry of this Order 26 or December 2, 2019, whichever is sooner, to disclose the information required in Section B. 1 party shall disclose: 2 1. Custodians. Plaintiffs and distributor defendants shall disclose up to 5 custodians, 3 retailer defendants (including those with at-issue private label products) shall disclose up to 7 4 custodians. The parties shall meet and confer if either party believes additional custodians would 5 be proportionate to the needs of the litigation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The parties make no 6 further representations or agreements regarding custodians and whether or not they should be 7 limited or expanded. This stipulated ESI order does not create a presumptive limit on custodians 8 for any party. 9 2. Non-custodial Data Sources. A list of non-custodial data sources (e.g. shared drives, 10 servers, etc.), if any, likely to contain discoverable ESI. 11 3. Third-Party Data Sources. A list of third-party data sources, if any, likely to 12 contain discoverable ESI (e.g. third-party email and/or mobile device providers, “cloud” 13 storage, etc.) and, for each such source, the extent to which a party is (or is not) able to 14 preserve information stored in the third-party data source. 15 4. Inaccessible Data. A list of data sources, if any, likely to contain discoverable ESI 16 (by type, date, custodian, electronic system or other criteria sufficient to specifically 17 identify the data source) that a party asserts is not reasonably accessible under Fed. R. Civ. 18 P. 26(b)(2)(B). 19 C. Preservation of ESI 20 The parties acknowledge that they have a common law obligation to take reasonable and 21 proportional steps to preserve discoverable information in the party’s possession, custody or 22 control. With respect to preservation of ESI, the parties agree as follows: 23 1. Absent a showing of good cause by the requesting party, the parties shall not be 24 required to modify the procedures used by them in the ordinary course of business to back-up 25 and archive data; provided, however, that the parties shall preserve all discoverable ESI in 26 their possession, custody or control. 1 2. All parties shall supplement their disclosures in accordance with Rule 26(e) with 2 discoverable ESI responsive to a particular discovery request or mandatory disclosure where 3 that data is created after a disclosure or response is made (unless excluded under (C)(3) or 4 (D)(1)-(2) below). 5 3. Absent a showing of good cause by the requesting party, the following categories of 6 ESI need not be preserved: 7 a. Deleted, slack, fragmented, or other data only accessible by forensics. b. Random access memory (RAM), temporary files, or other ephemeral data 8 that are difficult to preserve without disabling the operating system. 9 c. On-line access data such as temporary internet files, history, cache, cookies, and the like. 10 d. Data in metadata fields that are frequently updated automatically, such as last- 11 opened dates (see also Section (E)(5)). 12 e. Back-up data that are substantially duplicative of data that are more accessible elsewhere. 13 f. Server, system or network logs. 14 g. Data remaining from systems no longer in use that is unintelligible on the systems in use. 15 h. Electronic data (e.g. email, calendars, contact data, and notes) sent to or from 16 mobile devices (e.g., iPhone, iPad, Android, and Blackberry devices), provided that a copy of all such electronic data is routinely saved elsewhere (such as on a 17 server, laptop, desktop computer, or “cloud” storage). 18 D. Privilege 19 1. With respect to privileged or work-product information generated after the filing of the 20 complaint, parties are not required to include any such information in privilege logs. 21 2. Activities undertaken in compliance with the duty to preserve information are protected 22 from disclosure and discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A) and (B). 23 3. The production of privileged or work-product protected documents, electronically stored 24 information ("ESI") or information is not a waiver of the privilege or protection from discovery 25 in this case or in any other federal or state proceeding. This Order shall be interpreted to provide 26 the maximum protection allowed by Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d). Nothing contained herein 1 is intended to or shall serve to limit a party's right to conduct a review of documents, ESI, or 2 information (including metadata) for relevance, responsiveness, and/or segregation of privileged 3 and/or protected information before production. 4 4. Information produced in discovery that is protected as privileged or work product shall 5 be immediately returned to the producing party, and its production shall not constitute a waiver 6 of such protection, if: (i) such information appears on its face to have been inadvertently 7 produced or (ii) the producing party provides notice within 15 days of discovery by 8 the producing party of the inadvertent production. 9 5. Privilege Log Based on Metadata. The parties agree that privilege logs shall 10 include a unique identification number for each document and the basis for the claim (attorney- 11 client privileged or work-product protection). For ESI, the privilege log may be generated 12 using available metadata, including author/recipient or to/from/cc/bcc names; the subject matter 13 or title and date created. Should the available metadata provide insufficient information for the 14 purpose of evaluating the privilege claim asserted, the producing party shall include such 15 additional information as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 16 E. ESI Discovery Procedures 17 1. On-site inspection of electronic media. Such an inspection shall not be permitted 18 absent a demonstration by the requesting party of specific need and good cause or by 19 agreement of the parties. 20 2. Search methodology. The Parties will meet and confer in good faith to determine 21 how each of them will review ESI from such custodians (e.g., predictive coding, search terms). 22 Should the parties employ search terms, in the absence of agreement on appropriate search 23 terms, the following procedures shall apply: 24 a. A producing party shall disclose the search terms or queries, if any, and 25 methodology that it proposes to use to locate ESI likely to contain discoverable information. The 26 parties shall meet and confer to attempt to reach an agreement on the producing party’s search 1 terms and/or other methodology. 2 b. If search terms or queries are used to locate ESI likely to contain discoverable 3 information, a requesting party is entitled to no more than 5 additional terms or queries to be 4 used in connection with further electronic searches absent a showing of good cause or 5 agreement of the parties. The 5 additional terms or queries, if any, must be provided by the 6 requesting party within 14 days of receipt of the producing party’s production. 7 c. Focused terms and queries should be employed; broad terms or queries, such 8 as product and company names, generally should be avoided. Absent a showing of good cause, 9 each search term or query returning more than 250 megabytes of data is presumed to be 10 overbroad, excluding Microsoft PowerPoint files, image and audio files, databases, and similarly 11 large file types. 12 d. The producing party shall search both non-custodial data sources and ESI 13 maintained by the custodians identified above. 14 3. Format. The Parties shall generally produce ESI that is responsive, not 15 privileged, and not work product, in electronic format as a Bates numbered single-page TIFF 16 image. The production of documents requiring color shall be made in single page JPEG format 17 that provides sufficient quality for the review of these documents and/or ESI to the extent 18 reasonably possible. All production items will be provided with a delimited data file or “load 19 file.” Acceptable formats for the load file are .log, .opt, .dii .lfp, .txt, .dat, or .csv. Each party 20 will designate its preferred load file format and provide specific details regarding the 21 structure/format of the preferred load file. The load file must reference each TIFF in the 22 corresponding production. The total number of documents referenced in a production’s data 23 load file should match the total number of designated document breaks in the Image Load files 24 in the production. Each deliverable volume should limit directory contents to approximately 25 1000 files per folder. Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, files that are not easily 26 converted to or reviewable in image format, such as spreadsheet, database, drawing and 1 audio/video files, should be produced in native format. Documents produced natively shall be 2 represented in the set of imaged documents by a slip sheet indicating the production 3 identification number and confidentiality designation for the native file that is being produced 4 4. Document Unitization. Emails and related attachments will be produced such that 5 their parent-child or family relationship is maintained. If the only responsive document in a 6 family is entirely privileged, then the non-responsive documents in that family need not be 7 produced. If an email contains attachments, each attachment should be produced sequentially 8 following the email. When emails are converted to TIFF for production, they should be imaged 9 in a manner that displays the following headers: (i) the sender, (ii) the recipient(s), (iii) the 10 carbon-copy recipients (“CCs”), (iv) the blind-copy recipients (“BCCs”), if available, (v) the 11 date and time the email was sent, and (vi) the subject of the email. The Parties will attempt in 12 good faith to unitize documents correctly. 13 5. Electronic Production of Physical Documents. Whenever practicable, documents 14 that are located solely in physical hardcopy format are to be scanned and produced as text- 15 searchable TIFF or PDF files in lieu of photocopy production in their physical form. 16 6. Databases. Databases may contain substantial information that is not relevant or 17 responsive. Thus, a Party may opt to produce relevant and responsive information from 18 databases in an alternate, static format, such as a report or data table, and these reports or data 19 tables may be used by the Parties (including as evidence in support of a motion or at trial) in lieu 20 of, and without production of, the original database. Should a Party opt to produce such 21 information as a report/data table, any report/data table that is produced will be deemed 22 authentic and an accurate representation of information included in the counterpart database. A 23 Party that withholds any part of a database as non-responsive to a request for production should 24 not later be permitted to rely on the withheld information in the event that such information was 25 responsive to the request absent good cause or lack of prejudice to the receiving party. 26 7. De-duplication. A Party is only required to produce a single copy of a 1 responsive document (provided that all custodians are identified in an “All Custodian” or other 2 metadata field). Parties may de-duplicate stand-alone documents or entire document families 3 globally using MD5 or SHA-1 Hash5 value matching. A Party is only required to produce the 4 inclusive email(s) in an email chain, including any associated attachments. Attachments for 5 each inclusive e-mail shall be produced in accordance with the terms of Paragraph 5 above. 6 Parties may remove relevant, non-inclusive emails from production consideration provided the 7 excluded content is included in an inclusive email within the production set or designated on the 8 privilege log. Any email that changes recipients shall identified as inclusive and shall be 9 produced if relevant and not privileged. Common system files defined by the NIST library 10 (http://www.nsrl.nist.gov/) need not be produced. To the extent the Parties de-duplicate stand- 11 alone electronic documents against an email attachment, the attachment to the email must be the 12 document that is produced. 13 8. Metadata fields. If the requesting party seeks metadata, the parties agree that 14 only the following metadata fields need be produced: document type; custodian and duplicate 15 custodians; author/from; recipient/to, cc and bcc; title/subject; file name and size; original file 16 path; date and time created, sent, modified and/or received; and hash value. 17 F. Federal Rules 18 The parties agree that discovery must be conducted in furtherance of the Federal Rules. 19 Accordingly, this Protocol should be interpreted to further the just, speedy, and inexpensive 20 resolution of this action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. 21 G. Resolution of Disputes 22 The Parties shall meet and confer in good faith to resolve any dispute arising in regard to 23 ESI and/or any condition or term of this Protocol, and, to the extent possible, shall resolve any 24 such disputes without involving the Court. 25 26 Dated: October 31, 2019 Dated: October31, 2019 1
2 Respectfully submitted, Respectfully submitted,
3 DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL Attorneys for Defendants Cameron’s Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class 4 Coffee and Distribution Company; Gold Coffee Roasters, Inc.; The Kroger Co.; By: s/ Nathan Paine (per email authorization) 5 Albertson’s Companies Inc.; Safeway Inc.; Paul Richard Brown, WSBA 6 Walmart, Inc.; The TJX Companies d/b/a #19357 T.J. Maxx; Marshalls of MA, Inc. d/b/a Nathan T. Paine, WSBA #34487 7 Marshalls; Amazon.Com, Inc.; Copper 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Moon Coffee LLC; and Bed Bath & Beyond Seattle, Washington 98104 8 Inc. Telephone: (206) 223-1313 E-mail: pbrown@karrtuttle.com 9 By s/ Jaime Drozd Allen 10 Jaime Drozd Allen, WSBA #35742 Stephen M. Rummage, WSBA #11168 LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, 11 Ambika Doran, WSBA #38237 LLP Jacob M. Harper (pro hac vice) Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class 12 Benjamin J. Robbins, WSBA #53376 13 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 By: s/ Daniel Seltz (per email authorization) Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Jason L. Lichtman 14 Telephone: (206) 757-8039 Daniel E. Seltz Fax: (206) 757-7039 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor 15 E-mail: jaimeallen@dwt.com New York, NY 10013 E-mail: steverummage@dwt.com Telephone: (212) 355-9500 16 E-mail: ambikadoran@dwt.com E-mail: jlichtman@lchb.com 17 E-mail: jharper@dwt.com E-mail: benrobbins@dwt.com 18 CADES SCHUTTE LLP Attorneys for Defendant MNS Ltd. 19 ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP By s/ Kelly G. LaPorte (per email authorization) 20 Attorneys for Defendant Bed Bath & Kelly G. LaPorte, pro hac vice 21 Beyond Inc. and Copper Moon Coffee LLC Nathaniel Dang, pro hac vice 1000 Bishop Street, 12th Floor 22 Trenton H. Norris (pro hac vice) Honolulu, HI 96813 Trent.Norris@arnoldporter.com Ph: (808) 521-9200 Fax: (808) 521-9210 23 Tommy Huynh (pro hac vice) E-mail: klaporte@cades.com 24 Tommy.Huynh@arnoldporter.com E-mail: ndang@cades.com Three Embarcadero Center, 10th Floor 25 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 471-3100 26 Fax: (415) 471-3400 DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 1 Attorneys for Defendant Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. 2 By s/ Brian Janura (per email authorization) 3 J. Michael Keyes, WSBA #29215 Erin C. Kolter, WSBA #53365 4 Brian J. Janura, WSBA #50213 Columbia Center 5 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6100 6 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 903-8800 7 E-mail: keyes.mike@dorsey.com E-mail: kolter.erin@dorsey.com 8 E-mail: janura.brian@dorsey.com
10 LANE POWELL PC Attorneys for Defendant Hawaiian Isles Kona Coffee Company, Ltd., Costco Wholesale 11 Corporation, CostPlus, Inc. and L&K Coffee Co. LLC
12 By s/ Erin M. Wilson (per email authorization) Erin M. Wilson, WSBA No. 42454 13 Tiffany Scott Connors, WSBA No. 41740 14 Jessica Walder, WSBA No. 47676 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4200 15 P.O. Box 91302 Seattle, WA 98111-9402 16 Ph: (206) 223-7000 Fax: (206) 223-7107 E-mail: wilsonem@lanepowell.com 17 E-mail: connorst@lanepowell.com 18 E-mail: walderj@lanepowell.com
19 BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY, PC 20 Attorneys for Defendant MNS Ltd. 21 By s/ Daniel R. Bentson (per email authorization) 22 Daniel R. Bentson, WSBA #36825 Owen R. Mooney, WSBA #45779 23 1700 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1810 Seattle, WA 98101 24 Ph: (206) 292-8930 Fax: (206) 386-5130 25 E-mail: dan.bentson@bullivant.com E-mail: owen.mooney@bullivant.com 26 1 BUCHALTER 2 A Professional Corporation Attorneys for Defendant Mulvadi Corporation 3 By s/ Bradley P. Thoreson (per email authorization) 4 Bradley P. Thoreson, WSBA #18190 1420 Fifth Ave., Ste. 3100 5 Seattle, WA 98101-1337 6 Telephone: (206) 319-7052 E-mail: bthoreson@buchalter.com 7
8 WILSON SMITH COCHRAN DICKERSON Attorneys for Defendant Pacific Coffee, Inc. 9
10 By s/ Maria E. Sotirhos (per email authorization) Alfred E. Donohue, WSBA #32774 11 Maria E. Sotirhos, WSBA #21726 901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 12 Seattle, WA 98164 Ph: (206) 623-4100 Fax: (206) 623-9273 13 E-mail: donohue@wscd.com 14 E-mail: sotirhos@wscd.com
15 BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP 16 Attorneys for Defendant Cost Plus, Inc.
17 By s/ Merrit Jones (per email authorization) 18 Marcy J. Bergman (CA Bar No. 75826, pro hac vice) Merrit M. Jones (CA Bar No. 209033, pro hac vice) 19 Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor San Francisco, California 94111-4070 20 Ph: (415) 675-3400 Fax: (415) 675-3635 21 E-mail: Marcy.Bergman@bclplaw.com E-mail: Merrit.Jones@bclplaw.com 22
24 25 26 ORDER 1
Based on the foregoing, IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 3 Dated this 1st day of November, 2019. 4
5 A Robert S. Lasnik 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26