In Crosby v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 21-1083-JCC, 2022 WL 522953 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 22, 2022), the plaintiffs successfully challenged the use of a U.S. District Court's Model Agreement And Proposed Order, and lived to tell the tale.
The plaintiffs challenging Amazon in the Crosby case are individuals. They could not agree with Amazon on what a court order should say to regulate the production and handling of Electronically Stored Information (ESI) in that case:
The parties have been unable to come to an agreement whether to adopt, without modification, the District's model agreement governing Rule 34 production of electronically stored information (“ESI”). See [MODEL] AGREEMENT REGARDING DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER, available at https:// www.wawd.uscourts.gov/court-forms.
Crosby v. Amazon.com, 2022 WL 522953, at *1.
The District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to modify the Western District of Washington's Model Agreement and Proposed Order, in part. At the plaintiffs' request, the Court added ten additional search terms and granted the plaintiffs' request for an "expanded timeframe." Crosby v. Amazon.com, 2022 WL 522953, at *1.
The rest of the plaintiffs' requests were denied. Thereafter, the Court entered a detailed order accordingly, see Crosby v. Amazon.com, 2022 WL 522953, at *2-*5, during the course of which the Court set forth a compelling justification for its actions:
- General Principles
- 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.
Crosby v. Amazon.com, 2022 WL 522953, at ¶1, p. *2.
Please read the disclaimer. ©2022 Dennis J. Wall. All rights reserved.