Jama v State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, No. 2:2020cv00652 - Document 27 (W.D. Wash. 2020)
Court Description: STIPULATED ORDER granting Parties' 25 Joint Motion For Entry of Stipulated Order Under Fed. R. Evid. 502(d). Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(LH)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jama v State Farm Fire and Casualty Company Doc. 27 Case 2:20-cv-00652-MJP Document 27 Filed 08/17/20 Page 1 of 6 1 The Honorable Marsha J. Pechman 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 10 11 FAYSAL A. JAMA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Case No. 2:20-cv-00652-MJP Plaintiff, v. 12 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 13 Defendant. 14 1. STIPULATED ORDER UNDER FED. R. EVID. 502(d) Pursuant to the agreement of the Parties under Fed. R. Evid. 502(e) and by Order 15 of this Court under Fed. R. Evid. 502(d), no disclosure, production, or exchange of Information 16 (as defined below) in connection with the above-captioned matter (the “Litigation”) shall 17 constitute a waiver of attorney-client privilege or of any work product protection in this or any 18 other federal or state proceeding under any circumstances. 19 2. This Order applies to all documents and electronically stored information (as 20 those terms are used in Fed. R. Civ. P. 34), the information contained therein, and all other 21 information produced, disclosed, or exchanged by the Parties in connection with this Litigation, 22 whether revealed in a document, electronically stored information, deposition, other testimony, 23 discovery response or otherwise (collectively, “Information”). This Order should be interpreted 24 to prevent waiver to the broadest extent possible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the 25 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 26 STIPULATED ORDER UNDER FED. R. EVID. 502(D) Case No. 2:20-cv-00652-MJP 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-00652-MJP Document 27 Filed 08/17/20 Page 2 of 6 1 3. This Order is entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) and is 2 intended to protect the Parties to the Litigation, to the fullest extent permissible by law, against 3 any waiver of the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product protection that might 4 otherwise arise from the disclosure of privileged or protected Information. This Order is intended 5 to override any contrary law or presumptions, if and as applicable and permissible. The Parties’ 6 compliance with this Order’s terms shall be understood, for all purposes within and outside this 7 Litigation, to constitute reasonable and prompt efforts to preserve privileges and protections 8 from discovery in respect to any disclosed privileged or protected Information. 9 4. This Order applies regardless of whether the Information describes or relates to 10 actions taken in this Litigation, in prior or separate proceedings, or in other non-litigation 11 matters. 12 5. A party receiving Information (“Receiving Party”) is under a good faith 13 obligation to promptly alert the Producing Party if Information that is produced, disclosed, 14 exhibited, or communicated by a Producing Party appears to be privileged or work product- 15 protected either on its face or in light of facts known to the Receiving Party. 16 6. To effectuate a clawback, upon learning of the production of privileged or 17 protected Information, the Party making a production (“Producing Party”) shall promptly give all 18 counsel of record written notice of the production. The Producing Party need not provide any 19 explanation or evidence regarding the reasonableness of the efforts taken to prevent production 20 of such Information, and the Receiving Party agrees that it will not challenge the reasonableness 21 of such efforts. The notice shall identify the Information that was produced (including the format 22 of the production—e.g., paper, electronically stored information) and the date(s) the Information 23 was produced. If the Producing Party claims that only a portion of a document, electronically 24 stored information or tangible thing produced is privileged or protected Information, the 25 Producing Party shall also promptly provide a new copy of the Information with the allegedly 26 privileged or protected portions redacted. If the Receiving Party had previously filed documents with the Court containing newly-identified protected Information or pleadings discussing those STIPULATED ORDER UNDER FED. R. EVID. 502(D) Case No. 2:20-cv-00652-MJP 2 Case 2:20-cv-00652-MJP Document 27 Filed 08/17/20 Page 3 of 6 1 documents’ contents, then the Parties shall work in good faith to determine whether exhibits 2 must be withdrawn and filed with new redactions. 3 7. Upon receiving notice of a production or upon determining that Information it 4 received is known to be privileged or protected in whole or in part, the Receiving Party must 5 promptly return, sequester, and/or destroy the Information and all copies and destroy any notes 6 that reproduce, copy or otherwise reflect or disclose the substance of the privileged or work 7 product-protected Information. Any such Information that may exist on any computer or back-up 8 media which cannot be reasonably deleted may be retained until such time as the media is 9 subject to routine deletion or destruction provided that no person attempts to access the contents 10 of the Information unless allowed under the terms of this Order. If the Receiving Party disclosed 11 the privileged or work product-protected Information before being notified, it must take 12 reasonable steps to retrieve and prevent further use or distribution of such Information. This duty 13 expires if this Court rules that the Information is not privileged or protected by the work product 14 doctrine. 15 8. If the Receiving Party contests the claim of privilege or work product protection 16 in good-faith, it may within fourteen (14) days of the Producing Party’s written notice, seek 17 determination from the Court as to the privileged or protected nature of the Information. Pending 18 such challenge, a Receiving Party may securely retain copies of the document, record, or data 19 and any related notes. Pending a ruling on its challenge, the Receiving Party may not use the 20 protected Information in any way other than prosecuting its challenge. 21 9. To the extent that any Party obtains any privileged Information through disclosure 22 or communications, such Information may not be submitted to the Court or presented for 23 admission into evidence or sought in discovery by that Party in this Litigation or in any other 24 proceeding or action unless such filing is made under seal. If requested by the Receiving Party, 25 the Producing Party shall provide the Information at issue to the Court for in camera review 26 unless otherwise ordered by the Court. STIPULATED ORDER UNDER FED. R. EVID. 502(D) Case No. 2:20-cv-00652-MJP 3 Case 2:20-cv-00652-MJP Document 27 Filed 08/17/20 Page 4 of 6 1 10. If the Court sustains the claim that the Information disclosed, exchanged, 2 produced, or discussed is privileged or work product-protected, the Receiving Party must, within 3 ten (10) days of the Court’s order, promptly return and/or destroy the Information and all copies 4 and destroy any notes that reproduce, copy or otherwise disclose the substance of the privileged 5 or work product-protected Information. The Receiving Party shall advise the Producing Party in 6 writing of the return and/or destruction. 7 11. Nothing in this Order shall be construed to limit a party’s right to conduct a 8 review of documents, ESI, or information (including metadata) for relevance and responsiveness 9 and/or require the production of any Information or communication that a Party contends is 10 protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD: s/ Mark A. Trivett Duncan C. Turner, WSBA No. 20597 Mark A. Trivett, WSBA No. 46375 BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER, PLLC 19929 Ballinger Way NW, #200 Seattle, WA 98155 Telephone: 206-621-6566 Fax: 206-621-9686 Email: dturner@badgelymullins.com mtrivett@badgleymullins.com s/ Peter W. Herzog III Peter W. Herzog III (pro hac vice) Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell LLP 211 N. Broadway, Suite 2825 St. Louis, Missouri 63102 Phone: 314.326.4128 Fax: 303.244.1879 Email: pherzog@wtotrial.com Daniel R. Whitmore, WSBA No. 24012 LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL R. WHITMORE, PS 6840 Fort Dent Way, #210 Tukwila, WA 98188 Telephone: 206-329-8400 Facsimile: 206-329-8401 Email: dan@whitmorelawfirm.com Eric L. Robertson (pro hac vice) Wheeler Trigg O’Donnell LLP 370 17th Street, Suite 4500 Denver, Colorado 80202-5647 Phone: 303.244.1842 Fax: 303.244.1879 Email: robertson@wtotrial.com 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Attorneys for Plaintiff /// 26 STIPULATED ORDER UNDER FED. R. EVID. 502(D) Case No. 2:20-cv-00652-MJP 4 Case 2:20-cv-00652-MJP Document 27 Filed 08/17/20 Page 5 of 6 1 2 8 s/ Matthew Munson Joseph D. Hampton, WSBA #15297 Matthew Munson, WSBA #32019 Betts, Patterson & Mines, P.S. One Convention Place 701 Pike Street, Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98101-3927 Phone: 206.292.9988 Fax: 206.343.7053 Email: jhampton@bpmlaw.com mmunson@bpmlaw.com 9 Attorneys for Defendant 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 DONE and ORDERED this _17th_ day of _August_, 2020. A 13 14 Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 STIPULATED ORDER UNDER FED. R. EVID. 502(D) Case No. 2:20-cv-00652-MJP 5 Case 2:20-cv-00652-MJP Document 27 Filed 08/17/20 Page 6 of 6 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (CM/ECF) 2 3 4 5 I certify that on August 14, 2020 I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following email addresses: • Daniel R. Whitmore dan@whitmorelawfirm.com • Duncan C. Turner dturner@badgelymullins.com • Mark A. Trivett mtrivett@badgleymullins.com 6 7 8 9 10 s/ Matthew Munson Matthew Munson 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 STIPULATED ORDER UNDER FED. R. EVID. 502(D) Case No. 2:20-cv-00652-MJP 6 BETTS PATTERSON & MINES, P.S. 701 Pike Street, Suite 1400 Seattle, WA 98101-3927 P. 206.268.8652
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
