Case 2:21-cv-00750-RSL Document 93 Filed 06/02/22 Page 1 of 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`THE HONORABLE ROBERT S. LASNIK
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`
`AT SEATTLE
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware
`Corporation, and AMAZON.COM SERVICES
`)
`LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company,
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00750-RSL
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
`DISCOVERY RESPONSES
`
`NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:
`June 17, 2022
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`KAELI GARNER, et al.,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
`DISCOVERY RESPONSES
`Case No.: 2:21-cv-00750-RSL
`
`
`
`38TH FLOOR
`1000 SECOND AVENUE
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
`(206) 622-2000
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00750-RSL Document 93 Filed 06/02/22 Page 2 of 14
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................2
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO “ALL DOCUMENTS AND
`COMMUNICATIONS” RESPONSIVE TO THEIR REQUESTS. ........................3
`
`PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO A RELEVANT TIME PERIOD
`FROM JULY 17, 2013 TO THE PRESENT. ..........................................................4
`
`PLAINTIFFS ARE ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY REGARDING
`DEFENDANTS’ CONTRACTORS AS THIRD PARTIES. ..................................6
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
`DISCOVERY RESPONSES
`Case No.: 2:21-cv-00750-RSL
`
`
`
`38TH FLOOR
`1000 SECOND AVENUE
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
`(206) 622-2000
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00750-RSL Document 93 Filed 06/02/22 Page 3 of 14
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hughes,
`2002 WL 34420338 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 11, 2002) ....................................................................6
`
`In re BofI Holding, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
`2021 WL 1812822 (S.D. Cal. May 6, 2021) ..............................................................................5
`
`Connex R.R. LLC v. AXA Corp. Sols. Assurance,
`2017 WL 3433542 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2017)............................................................................4
`
`Everest Indem. Ins. Co. v. QBE Ins. Corp.,
`980 F. Supp. 2d 1273 (W.D. Wash. 2013) .................................................................................3
`
`Gsouri v. Farwest Steel Corp.,
`2011 WL 3471437 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 8, 2011) ........................................................................3
`
`Hall v. Marriott Int’l, Inc.,
`2021 WL 1906464 (S.D. Cal. May 12, 2021) ........................................................................3, 5
`
`Hatamian v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,
`2015 WL 7180662 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2015) ..........................................................................5
`
`HP Tuners, LLC v. Sykes-Bonnett,
`2018 WL 10398220 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 13, 2018) ................................................................3, 5
`
`Puget Soundkeeper All. v. BNSF Ry. Co.,
`2011 WL 13233167 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 15, 2011) .................................................................3, 5
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Discovery Pending Decision on Amazon’s Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 73 .................................1
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)................................................................................................................2, 5
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B) ......................................................................................................2, 3, 5
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C) ..............................................................................................................3
`
`Third Party, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, available at https://www.merriam-
`webster.com/dictionary/third-party ............................................................................................6
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
`DISCOVERY RESPONSES
`Case No.: 2:21-cv-00750-RSL
`
`
`
`38TH FLOOR
`1000 SECOND AVENUE
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
`(206) 622-2000
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00750-RSL Document 93 Filed 06/02/22 Page 4 of 14
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Plaintiffs Kaeli Garner, Mark Fladd, Stephanie Fladd, Jodi Brust, John Dannelly, Diane
`
`McNealy, Michael McNealy, Lisa Hovasse, Sandra Mirabile, Ricky Babani, Susan Lenehan,
`
`Jeffrey Hoyt, Lorlie Tesoriero, James Robinson, Rosa Comacho, Eric Dlugoss, Julie Dlugoss,
`
`Ronald Johnson, Selena Johnson, Caron Watkins, and Kelly Miller (collectively, “Plaintiffs”)
`
`respectfully submit this memorandum of law in support of this motion, pursuant to L.C.R. 37(a),
`
`to compel discovery responses from Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com Services LLC
`
`(collectively, “Defendants”).
`
`Pursuant to L.C.R. 37(a)(1), Plaintiffs met and conferred with Defendants to discuss their
`
`responses and objections to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Production on April 12, 2022, April
`
`10
`
`19, 2022, and May 18, 2022. Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants (collectively, “the Parties”)
`
`11
`
`met and conferred by telephone in an effort to efficiently resolve Defendants’ objections to every
`
`12
`
`request without the need for Court intervention. After over six hours of telephonic conferences,
`
`13
`
`and several rounds of e-mails and letters, the Parties were able to make some progress. However,
`
`14
`
`there are several ongoing disputes regarding Defendants’ remaining objections, which the Parties
`
`15
`
`have been unable to resolve. Now at an impasse, Plaintiffs seek an Order from the Court overruling
`
`16
`
`Defendants’ improper objections and compelling Defendants to properly respond to Plaintiffs’
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Requests.
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`As this case enters its second year, Defendants have yet to provide almost any discovery
`
`in this matter. The Court’s Order Setting Discovery and Pretrial Dates (ECF No. 72), entered on
`
`February 18, 2022, calls for a close of fact discovery on December 16, 2022. Given that this
`
`deadline is just six and a half months away, time is of the essence.
`
`Plaintiffs view the need for efficient discovery as a critical component of this litigation and
`
`have diligently sought relevant documents from Defendants and third-parties. Defendants,
`
`however, have taken a contrary position from the start. Defendants first sought to delay discovery
`
`by filing a Motion to Stay all Discovery Pending Decision on Amazon’s Motion to Dismiss. ECF
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
`DISCOVERY RESPONSES
`Case No.: 2:21-cv-00750-RSL
`
`
`
`38TH FLOOR
`1000 SECOND AVENUE
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
`(206) 622-2000
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00750-RSL Document 93 Filed 06/02/22 Page 5 of 14
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`No. 73. The Court denied this motion signaling that discovery should proceed in full force. ECF
`
`No. 79.
`
`Despite the Court’s Order, Defendants continue to improperly cause delay. For example,
`
`on February 4, 2022, Plaintiffs served their first Requests for Production (“RFPs” or “Requests”
`
`or “RFP Set 1”), seeking relevant information tied to the claims and potential defenses in this
`
`action. See Shelquist Decl. Ex. A. Waiting until March 7, 2022, Defendants served their responses
`
`and objections (“R&Os”) to RFP Set 1, in which they refused to provide any responsive documents
`
`to any of Plaintiffs’ Requests, and asserted approximately fifteen objections, generally and
`
`specifically, to every Request. See Shelquist Decl. Ex. B.
`
`Defendants’ R&Os are deficient for several reasons, which Plaintiffs highlighted in a letter
`
`to Defendants dated March 28, 2022. See Shelquist Decl. Ex. C. Additionally, Plaintiffs requested
`
`12
`
`to meet and confer with Defendants in an attempt to resolve these issues. Defendants provided
`
`13
`
`their reply to Plaintiffs’ March 28, 2022 letter on April 11, 2022 (“Defendants’ April 11, 2022
`
`14
`
`15
`
`letter”), in which they revised some of their objections. See Shelquist Decl. Ex. D.
`
`For over three months, the Parties have engaged in numerous, lengthy discussions
`
`16
`
`concerning RFP Set 1. While some progress has been made, several foundational issues remain.
`
`17
`
`The issues include: (i) Plaintiffs’ entitlement to “all documents and communications” responsive
`
`18
`
`to relevant Requests; (ii) the relevant time period (“Relevant Time Period”) governing the
`
`19
`
`Requests; and (iii) the definition of third parties. Plaintiffs seek Court intervention to resolve these
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`issues to allow discovery to go forward.
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A party may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any
`
`claim or defense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). In responding to a request for the production of
`
`documents, the responding party “must either state that inspection and related activities will be
`
`permitted as requested or state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including
`
`the reasons.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). If the responding party objects, the objection “must
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
`DISCOVERY RESPONSES
`Case No.: 2:21-cv-00750-RSL
`
`
`
`38TH FLOOR
`1000 SECOND AVENUE
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
`(206) 622-2000
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00750-RSL Document 93 Filed 06/02/22 Page 6 of 14
`
`
`
`state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that objection. An
`
`objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit inspection of the rest.” Fed. R. Civ.
`
`P. 34(b)(2)(C).
`
`“The party who resists discovery has the burden to show discovery should not be allowed,
`
`and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections.” Gsouri v. Farwest
`
`Steel Corp., 2011 WL 3471437, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 8, 2011); see also Puget Soundkeeper
`
`All. v. BNSF Ry. Co., 2011 WL 13233167, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 15, 2011) (“the party resisting
`
`discovery bears a heavy burden of showing why discovery should be denied”). A requesting party
`
`is entitled to compel a response to requests for production where the targeted party fails to provide
`
`an answer. See id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)).
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs are entitled to “all documents and communications”
`responsive to their Requests.
`
`Defendants object to the scope of many of Plaintiffs’ RFPs, which request “all documents
`
`and communications,” see RFPs 1-20, 25, 28, 29, and 36-41, but their unarticulated and boilerplate
`
`objection is insufficient. While Defendants argue that these Requests are “overbroad, unduly
`
`burdensome, oppressive, and not proportional to the needs of the case,” Defendants provide no
`factual or legal basis as to why Plaintiffs’ Requests are overbroad, unduly burdensome, oppressive,
`
`and not proportional, and as such fail to “state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the
`
`request” as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). See Everest Indem. Ins. Co. v. QBE Ins. Corp.,
`
`980 F. Supp. 2d 1273, 1277 (W.D. Wash. 2013) (“The party who resists discovery has the burden
`
`to show that discovery should not be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and
`
`supporting objections.”); HP Tuners, LLC v. Sykes-Bonnett, 2018 WL 10398220, at *1 (W.D.
`
`Wash. Nov. 13, 2018) (“Boilerplate objections are insufficient to establish that a particular
`
`discovery request is outside the scope of discovery.”); Hall v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 2021 WL
`
`1906464, at *9-10 (S.D. Cal. May 12, 2021) (“The party ‘claiming that a discovery request is
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
`DISCOVERY RESPONSES
`Case No.: 2:21-cv-00750-RSL
`
`
`
`38TH FLOOR
`1000 SECOND AVENUE
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
`(206) 622-2000
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00750-RSL Document 93 Filed 06/02/22 Page 7 of 14
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`unduly burdensome must allege specific facts which indicate the nature and extent of the burden,
`
`usually by affidavit or other reliable evidence.’”).
`
`Putting aside Defendants’ failure to meet their burden, Plaintiffs are entitled to “all
`
`documents and communications” here because their Requests “seek relevant information” and “are
`
`sufficiently narrow, as they seek [documents and] communications with specific parties on specific
`
`topics.” Connex R.R. LLC v. AXA Corp. Sols. Assurance, 2017 WL 3433542, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Feb.
`
`22, 2017). More specifically, Plaintiffs’ Requests are directly concerned with topics related to
`
`their claims pled in the First Amended Consolidated Complaint (“FAC”) (ECF No. 59), which
`
`have now survived Defendants’ motion to dismiss, including: (i) how Alexa functions; (ii) what
`
`10
`
`privacy disclosures were provided to Registered Users; (iii) what third parties use Alexa; (iv) other
`
`11
`
`complaints or investigations regarding Alexa recordings; (v) third party review of Alexa
`
`12
`
`recordings; (vi) Amazon’s review of Alexa recordings; (vii) storage of Alexa recordings; (viii)
`
`13
`
`amount of Alexa devices in existence; and (ix) number of Alexa recordings.
`
`14
`
`Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court overrule Defendants’ objections and compel
`
`15
`
`the production of “all documents and communications” in response to Requests 1-20, 25, 28, 29,
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and 36-41.
`B.
`
`Plaintiffs are entitled to a Relevant Time Period from July 17, 2013 to
`the present.
`
`RFP Set 1 defines the Relevant Time Period governing the requests as the period between
`
`July 17, 2013, to the present. Plaintiffs selected the start date based on the information and belief
`
`of Counsel that the design of Alexa-enabled devices began at this time and the claims all concern
`
`intentional design choices to record interactions, if and how a notification would be made, how
`
`the interactions are recorded, and the use of interaction recordings and data regardless of how
`
`captured. Moreover, Defendants’ main defense is benignly calling surreptitious recordings “false
`
`wakes” without any explanation of how and why they happen and, if unpreventable, what design
`
`choices were made or rejected that would have provided notice for all interactions. Plaintiffs seek
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
`DISCOVERY RESPONSES
`Case No.: 2:21-cv-00750-RSL
`
`
`
`38TH FLOOR
`1000 SECOND AVENUE
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
`(206) 622-2000
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00750-RSL Document 93 Filed 06/02/22 Page 8 of 14
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`discovery through the present based on Defendants’ continuing violations of the statutes pled in
`
`the FAC.
`
`Defendants object to the start date for the Relevant Time Period, asserting Plaintiffs are
`
`only entitled to information beginning in June 2018. They tie this arbitrary start date to the “longest
`
`statute of limitations of any claim in the complaint[.]” See Shelquist Decl. Ex. D. Here again,
`
`Defendants fail to provide any evidence or information to support any supposed burden associated
`
`with producing documents from July 17, 2013 to the present, and why June 2018 to the present is
`
`not, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). See HP Tuners, LLC, 2018 WL 10398220, at *1.
`
`Defendants’ failure to provide any additional support is fatal, because, “[t]here is no rule
`
`10
`
`that discovery be constrained to a particular time period beyond the general standard under Rule
`
`11
`
`12
`
`26(b)(1) requiring that discovery be relevant and proportionate.” In re BofI Holding, Inc. Sec.
`
`Litig., 2021 WL 1812822, at *5 (S.D. Cal. May 6, 2021). Discovery beyond the statute of
`
`13
`
`limitations period is warranted where the documents sought are “relevant to issues in the case.”
`
`14
`
`Puget Soundkeeper, 2011 WL 13233167, at *3; see Hatamian v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,
`
`15
`
`2015 WL 7180662, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2015) (“courts allow discovery to extend to events
`
`16
`
`before and after the period of actual liability so as to provide context”); Hall, 2021 WL 1906464,
`
`17
`
`at *8 (“[t]he statute of limitations is not a rigid barrier separating discoverable information from
`
`18
`
`information outside the scope of discovery”).
`
`19
`
`Plaintiffs adequately demonstrate that discovery prior to June 2018 is relevant to the issues
`
`20
`
`in the case. The FAC contains allegations that Alexa-enabled devices were brought to market in
`
`21
`
`2014, and that violations have continued through the present. FAC, ¶¶ 45, 246, 256. Additionally,
`
`22
`
`the FAC alleges that the applicable statutes of limitations have been tolled as a result of Amazon’s
`
`23
`
`active concealment and denial of the facts alleged therein. FAC, ¶¶ 140-42. Plaintiffs seek
`
`24
`
`discovery from a Relevant Time Period beginning slightly before the launch of Alexa-enabled
`
`25
`
`devices to gain context for the design and capabilities of the devices. Plaintiffs respectfully request
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
`DISCOVERY RESPONSES
`Case No.: 2:21-cv-00750-RSL
`
`
`
`38TH FLOOR
`1000 SECOND AVENUE
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
`(206) 622-2000
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00750-RSL Document 93 Filed 06/02/22 Page 9 of 14
`
`
`
`that the Court overrule Defendants’ objections to the Relevant Time Period and compel discovery
`
`from July 17, 2013 to the present.
`C.
`
`Plaintiffs are entitled to discovery regarding Defendants’ contractors
`as third parties.
`
`The Parties are at an impasse with respect to what qualifies as a third party. Defendants
`
`improperly refuse to produce documents in response to Requests concerning third parties. See
`
`RFPs 9, 12, 13, 17, 26-31, 33, and 38-40. In Plaintiffs’ view, the ordinary definition of third party
`
`is “a person other than the principals.” See Third Party, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, available
`
`at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/third-party. Applying this definition, Plaintiffs’
`
`view of a third party refers to any person outside of Amazon, including contractors.
`
`Defendants disagree with the ordinary definition of third parties. Instead, Defendants draw
`
`a false distinction between employees, contractors, and third parties. In their April 11, 2022 letter,
`
`Defendants claim they have no responsive information concerning third parties. See Shelquist
`
`Decl. Ex. D. However, Defendants admit that they permitted contractors to access Alexa voice
`
`recordings until 2020. In Defendants’ view, a contractor is neither a third party nor an employee.
`
`See Shelquist Decl. Ex. D. Thus when, for instance, a Request seeks documents concerning third
`
`parties who listened to recordings, Defendants insist that their contractors are akin to employees.
`
`On that basis and using circular logic, Defendants then take the position that, since they view their
`
`contractors as akin to employees, there are no “third parties” that listened to the recordings so there
`
`is no information responsive to these requests. Using this false distinction as both a sword and a
`
`shield, Defendants objected to a Request for an organizational chart by arguing that contractors
`
`are not employees so those persons will not be a part of any organizational chart production.
`
`Plaintiffs fundamentally disagree with Defendants’ false definitional distinctions, which
`
`only serve to hamper discovery efforts. Contractors are third parties pursuant to the ordinary
`
`definition of third parties. Moreover, the law routinely distinguishes between employees and
`
`contractors, or third parties. See generally Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 2002 WL 34420338 (W.D.
`
`Wash. Mar. 11, 2002) (analyzing the distinction between an employee and contractor). Contrary
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
`DISCOVERY RESPONSES
`Case No.: 2:21-cv-00750-RSL
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`38TH FLOOR
`1000 SECOND AVENUE
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
`(206) 622-2000
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00750-RSL Document 93 Filed 06/02/22 Page 10 of 14
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`to Defendants’ position, documents and communications concerning contractors are responsive to
`
`Plaintiffs’ Requests on topics regarding Amazon’s relationships with third parties.
`
`To further confuse the issue, Defendants seek to satisfy their discovery obligations by
`
`summarizing their documents and providing general statistical data indicating information such as
`
`the number of recordings reviewed by human listeners. This is not the discovery demand Plaintiffs
`
`served. Plaintiffs are entitled to good faith responses to their duly served requests for production
`
`of documents, regardless of whether Defendants prefer not to produce them. General statistical
`
`information describing Amazon’s human listening program is not sufficient to satisfy Amazon’s
`
`obligations to respond to these Requests. Plaintiffs are entitled to information regarding who
`
`10
`
`(outside of Amazon) had access to their recordings in order to determine the full scope of
`
`11
`
`Defendants’ violations.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court reject Defendants’ definition of “contractors”
`
`and compel discovery in response to Requests 9, 12, 13, 17, 26-31, 33, and 38-40.
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs request that the Court grant this motion to compel in
`
`its entirety.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED: June 2, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Bradley S. Keller
`BYRNES KELLER CROMWELL LLP
`BRADLEY S. KELLER (WSBA# 10665)
`1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor
`Seattle, WA 98104
`Telephone: 206/622-2000
`206/622-2522 (fax)
`bkeller@byrneskeller.com
`
`Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class
`
`LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
`MICHAEL P. CANTY
`(admitted pro hac vice)
`CAROL C. VILLEGAS
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
`DISCOVERY RESPONSES
`Case No.: 2:21-cv-00750-RSL
`
`
`
`38TH FLOOR
`1000 SECOND AVENUE
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
`(206) 622-2000
`
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00750-RSL Document 93 Filed 06/02/22 Page 11 of 14
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(admitted pro hac vice)
`GUILLAUME BUELL
`(admitted pro hac vice)
`DAVID SALDAMANDO
`(admitted pro hac vice)
`140 Broadway
`New York, NY 10005
`Telephone: 212/907-0700
`212/818-0477 (fax)
`mcanty@labaton.com
`cvillegas@labaton.com
`gbuell@labaton.com
`dsaldamando@labaton.com
`
`ROBBINS GELLER
`RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
`PAUL J. GELLER
`STUART A. DAVIDSON
`(admitted pro hac vice)
`MAXWELL H. SAWYER
`(admitted pro hac vice)
`ALEXANDER H. COHEN
`(admitted pro hac vice)
`120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
`Boca Raton, FL 33432
`Telephone: 561/750-3000
`561/750-3364 (fax)
`pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
`sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
`msawyer@rgrdlaw.com
`acohen@rgrdlaw.com
`
`Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class
`
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`L. TIMOTHY FISHER
`(admitted pro hac vice)
`1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`Telephone: 925/300-4455
`925/407-2700 (fax)
`ltfisher@bursor.com
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`ALEC M. LESLIE
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
`DISCOVERY RESPONSES
`Case No.: 2:21-cv-00750-RSL
`
`
`
`38TH FLOOR
`1000 SECOND AVENUE
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
`(206) 622-2000
`
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00750-RSL Document 93 Filed 06/02/22 Page 12 of 14
`
`
`
`(admitted pro hac vice)
`MAX S. ROBERTS
`(admitted pro hac vice)
`888 Seventh Avenue
`New York, NY 10019
`Telephone: 646/837-7150
`212/989-9163 (fax)
`aleslie@bursor.com
`mroberts@bursor.com
`
`ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
`BRIAN C. GUDMUNDSON
`(admitted pro hac vice)
`JASON P. JOHNSTON
`(admitted pro hac vice)
`MICHAEL J. LAIRD
`(admitted pro hac vice)
`1100 IDS Center
`80 South 8th Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: 612/341-0400
`brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com
`jason.johnston@zimmreed.com
`michael.laird@zimmreed.com
`
`
`LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL
`NAUEN P.L.L.P.
`ROBERT K. SHELQUIST
`(admitted pro hac vice)
`REBECCA A. PETERSON
`(admitted pro hac vice)
`100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
`Minneapolis, MN 55401
`Telephone: 612/339-6900
`612/339-0981 (fax)
`rkshelquist@locklaw.com
`rapeterson@locklaw.com
`
`
`Interim Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Class
`
`CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
`Michael J. Flannery (admitted pro hac vice)
`500 North Broadway, Suite 1450
`St. Louis, MO 63102
`Telephone: 314/226-1015 (direct)
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
`DISCOVERY RESPONSES
`Case No.: 2:21-cv-00750-RSL
`
`
`
`38TH FLOOR
`1000 SECOND AVENUE
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
`(206) 622-2000
`
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00750-RSL Document 93 Filed 06/02/22 Page 13 of 14
`
`Telephone (cell): 314/330-2771
`mflannery@cuneolaw.com
`website: www.cuneolaw.com
`
`
`CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
`Charles J. LaDuca (admitted pro hac vice)
`4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200
`Washington, DC 20016
`Telephone: 202/789-3960
`www.cuneolaw.com
`
`CARSON NOEL PLLC
`Wright A. Noel
`20 Sixth Avenue NE
`Issaquah, WA 98027
`Telephone: 425/ 837-4717
`425/837-5396
`wright@carsonnoel.com
`
`Additional Counsel for Plaintiffs and
`the Class
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
`DISCOVERY RESPONSES
`Case No.: 2:21-cv-00750-RSL
`
`
`
`38TH FLOOR
`1000 SECOND AVENUE
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
`(206) 622-2000
`
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00750-RSL Document 93 Filed 06/02/22 Page 14 of 14
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned attorney certifies that on the 2nd day of June, 2022, I electronically filed
`the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification
`of such filing to all counsel on record in the matter.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Bradley S. Keller
`
`Byrnes Keller Cromwell LLP
`1000 Second Avenue, 38th Floor
`Seattle, WA 98104
`Telephone: (206) 622-2000
`Facsimile: (206) 622-2522
`bkeller@byrneskeller.com
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
`DISCOVERY RESPONSES
`Case No.: 2:21-cv-00750-RSL
`
`
`
`38TH FLOOR
`1000 SECOND AVENUE
`SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98104
`(206) 622-2000
`
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`