Mountaineers Foundation v. The Mountaineers

W.D. Washington

Mountaineers Foundation v. The Mountaineers

DecidedApril 29, 2020

Docket2:19-cv-01819

StatusUnknown

This text of Mountaineers Foundation v. The Mountaineers (Mountaineers Foundation v. The Mountaineers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mountaineers Foundation v. The Mountaineers, (W.D. Wash. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 MOUNTAINEERS FOUNDATION, Case No. C19-1819 RSL-TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER RE: ELECTRONIC 8 DISCOVERY MEET-AND-CONFER THE MOUNTAINEERS, 9 Defendants. 10

11 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of ESI Order 12 (Dkt. 22) and Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. 24). The Court held Oral Argument on 13 March 13, 2020. Dkt. 40. On April 10, 2020 the Court held a second hearing regarding 14 the pending motions. Dkt. 44. 15 Pursuant to the April 10, 2020 hearing, and under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, the Court 16 ORDERS: 17 • With regards to third party data sources, the parties are directed to meet 18 and confer to establish a list of proposed subjects and categories of topics 19 subject to discovery. 20 • The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding the number of 21 sample documents and iterations needed to appropriately test the 22 technical aspects of production. The parties are also directed to select at 23 least one document set for a small production to make sure that all of the 24 1 technical aspects of the production are working effectively to meet the 2 standards for proportionality under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). 3 • The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding the disclosure of 4 network architecture. The parties shall consider the proportionality of costs 5 of production and the privacy interests of third-party donors and

6 volunteers. 7 • Once the remaining issues regarding the ESI order are resolved, the 8 parties are further directed to define any categories of documents the 9 parties believe will require additional metadata. The parties are also 10 directed to reach an agreement allowing for a reasonable disclosure of 11 metadata for these documents. 12 • The parties are directed to submit a final protocol document for electronic 13 discovery for the Court’s review on or before May 7, 2020. The final 14 proposed protocol shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) proportionality of

15 discovery. See, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. DataTreasury Corp., 936 16 F.3d 251, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2019); Vallejo v. Amgen, Inc., 903 F.3d 733, 17 742-45 (8th Cir. 2018); Noble Roman’s Inc. v. Hattenhauer Distributing 18 Co., 314 F.R.D. 304, 307-08 (S.D. Ind. 2016). 19 • The parties are also directed to brief the issue of attorney’s eyes-only 20 designation regarding top level executives. 21 o Defendant shall file an opening brief on or before April 30, 2020; 22 o Plaintiff shall file a responsive brief on or before May 5, 2020; and 23 o Defendant shall file a reply brief on or before May 6, 2020. 24 1 • A third telephonic hearing is set for May 7, 2020 at 9:30 AM before 2 Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke. 3 Dated this 29th day of April, 2020. 4 5 A 6 Theresa L. Fricke 7 United States Magistrate Judge

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT TACOMA 6 MOUNTAINEERS FOUNDATION, Case No. C19-1819 RSL-TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER RE: ELECTRONIC 8 DISCOVERY MEET-AND-CONFER THE MOUNTAINEERS, 9 Defendants. 10

11 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of ESI Order 12 (Dkt. 22) and Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. 24). The Court held Oral Argument on 13 March 13, 2020. Dkt. 40. On April 10, 2020 the Court held a second hearing regarding 14 the pending motions. Dkt. 44. 15 Pursuant to the April 10, 2020 hearing, and under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, the Court 16 ORDERS: 17 • With regards to third party data sources, the parties are directed to meet 18 and confer to establish a list of proposed subjects and categories of topics 19 subject to discovery. 20 • The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding the number of 21 sample documents and iterations needed to appropriately test the 22 technical aspects of production. The parties are also directed to select at 23 least one document set for a small production to make sure that all of the 24 1 technical aspects of the production are working effectively to meet the 2 standards for proportionality under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). 3 • The parties are directed to meet and confer regarding the disclosure of 4 network architecture. The parties shall consider the proportionality of costs 5 of production and the privacy interests of third-party donors and

6 volunteers. 7 • Once the remaining issues regarding the ESI order are resolved, the 8 parties are further directed to define any categories of documents the 9 parties believe will require additional metadata. The parties are also 10 directed to reach an agreement allowing for a reasonable disclosure of 11 metadata for these documents. 12 • The parties are directed to submit a final protocol document for electronic 13 discovery for the Court’s review on or before May 7, 2020. The final 14 proposed protocol shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) proportionality of

15 discovery. See, JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. DataTreasury Corp., 936 16 F.3d 251, 259-60 (5th Cir. 2019); Vallejo v. Amgen, Inc., 903 F.3d 733, 17 742-45 (8th Cir. 2018); Noble Roman’s Inc. v. Hattenhauer Distributing 18 Co., 314 F.R.D. 304, 307-08 (S.D. Ind. 2016). 19 • The parties are also directed to brief the issue of attorney’s eyes-only 20 designation regarding top level executives. 21 o Defendant shall file an opening brief on or before April 30, 2020; 22 o Plaintiff shall file a responsive brief on or before May 5, 2020; and 23 o Defendant shall file a reply brief on or before May 6, 2020. 24 1 • A third telephonic hearing is set for May 7, 2020 at 9:30 AM before 2 Magistrate Judge Theresa L. Fricke. 3 Dated this 29th day of April, 2020. 4 5 A 6 Theresa L. Fricke 7 United States Magistrate Judge

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Mountaineers Foundation v. The Mountaineers, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mountaineers-foundation-v-the-mountaineers-wawd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack