Mountaineers Foundation v. The Mountaineers

W.D. Washington

Mountaineers Foundation v. The Mountaineers

District Court, W.D. Washington·Decided April 29, 2020·No. 2:19-cv-01819·Unknown

Opinion

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON MOUNTAINEERS FOUNDATION, Case No. C19-1819 RSL-TLF Plaintiff, v. ORDER RE: ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY MEET-AND-CONFER THE MOUNTAINEERS, Defendants.

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

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

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

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

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON MOUNTAINEERS FOUNDATION, Case No. C19-1819 RSL-TLF Plaintiff, v. ORDER RE: ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY MEET-AND-CONFER THE MOUNTAINEERS, Defendants.

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

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

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

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

Pincite

Mountaineers Foundation v. The Mountaineers (Mountaineers Foundation v. The Mountaineers) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related