O.E. v. HPT TRS IHG-2 Inc et al

Filing 52

ORDER. The parties' stipulated motion (Dkt. No. 51 ) is GRANTED. As the parties have resolved the dispute that led to the filing of Defendants' motion to compel (Dkt. No. 39 ), the Court now DENIES that motion as moot. Signed by District Judge Kymberly K. Evanson. (KRA) (cc: Defendant Abrdurakhmon Mukhammadjonov via USPS) Modified re cc information on 3/5/2025 (KRA).

1

HON. KYMBERLY K. EVANSON

2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

O.E., an individual,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13
14

Case No. 2:23-cv-01748-KKE

v.
HPT TRS IHG-2, INC., a Maryland
corporation; SONESTA INTERNATIONAL
HOTELS CORPORATION, a Massachusetts
Corporation; and ABRDURAKHMON
MUKHAMMADJONOV, an individual,

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE:
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND
PRODUCTION OF ELECTRONIC
DEVICES FOR FORENSIC
EXAMINATION

Defendants.

15
16
17

STIPULATION

18

Plaintiff O.E. (“Plaintiff”), and Defendants HBT TRS IHG-2, Inc. and Sonesta

19

International Hotels Corporation (“the Sonesta Defendants”), stipulate to the following order

20

which, if granted shall resolve the Sonesta Defendants pending Motion to Compel Production of

21

Documents and Production of Electronic Devices for Forensic Examination (“the Motion”).

22

(1)

Plaintiff shall produce all of her text messages (including any stored in a cloud

23

system), from any cellular telephone or other device used by Plaintiff at any time from

24

September 30, 2022, to the present;

25
26
STIPULATED ORDER RE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND PRODUCTION OF
ELECTRONIC DEVICES FOR FORENSIC EXAMINATION - 1
(2:23-cv-01748-KKE)

1

(2)

Plaintiff shall produce all cellular devices used by Plaintiff during that time for

2

purposes of a forensic examination by Leatha and Associates, who will return all devices to

3

Plaintiff’s attorneys that same day;

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

(3)

Leatha and Associates will segregate any text messages which include counsel for

Plaintiff and privilege has not been waived by including a third party;
(4)

Counsel for the Sonesta Defendants will review the non-privileged texts and

identify messages it believes should be produced;
(5)

Counsel for Plaintiff shall within fifteen (15) days thereafter identify any texts

identified by Sonesta for production that it believes are privileged;
(6)

If the parties cannot agree on any particular privilege issue, they may bring the

matter to the Court’s attention for resolution;
(7)

The cost of the forensic examination by Leatha and Associates shall be borne

equally by both sides;

14

(8)

Each side will bear its own attorney’s fees in connection with the Motion; and

15

(9)

Sonesta does not waive any issue or argument it may have regarding potential

16

spoliation of evidence, and Plaintiff does not waiver her right to oppose any such issue or

17

argument.

18
19

Plaintiff and the Sonesta Defendants agree to such an order being entered.
IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

20
21

DATED: March 5, 2025.

22
23
24
25
26
STIPULATED ORDER RE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND PRODUCTION OF
ELECTRONIC DEVICES FOR FORENSIC EXAMINATION - 2
(2:23-cv-01748-KKE)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

LAW OFFICES OF LOURDES SANCHEZ,
PC
s/ Apolinar Montero-Sanchez (via email
authorization)
Apolinar Montero-Sanchez, WSBA 55179
[e-mail]
P.O. Box 11526
Eugene, OR 97440
Telephone: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff O.E.
KAFOURY & MCDOUGAL
s/ Jason Kafoury (via email authorization)
Jason Kafoury, WSBA 58721
[e-mail]
Adam Kiel, WSBA 58324
[e-mail]
411 S.W. 2nd Avenue, Suite 200
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: [phone]

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

s/ James M. Shore
James M. Shore, WSBA No. 28095
[e-mail]
Jacqueline Middleton, WSBA No. 52636
[e-mail]
Manmit K. Dhami, WSBA No. 61332
[e-mail]
600 University Street, Suite 3600
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 206.386.7500
Attorneys for Defendants
HPT TRS IHG-2, Inc. and
Sonesta International Hotels Corporation

Attorneys for Plaintiff O.E.

17
18

STOEL RIVES LLP

ORDER
The parties’ stipulated motion (Dkt. No. 51) is GRANTED. As the parties have resolved
the dispute that led to the filing of Defendants’ motion to compel (Dkt. No. 39), the Court now
DENIES that motion as moot.
Dated this 5th day of March, 2025.

A
Kymberly K. Evanson
United States District Judge

26
STIPULATED ORDER RE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND PRODUCTION OF
ELECTRONIC DEVICES FOR FORENSIC EXAMINATION - 3
(2:23-cv-01748-KKE)