23 are satisfied 20 or that discovery is likely to produce substantiation of class allegations.” Kingsberry v. 18 When assessing pre-certification discovery disputes, a court may require that the plaintiff 19 make “a prima facie showing that the class action requirements of Fed.

“The 14 party seeking a protective order has the burden to demonstrate good cause, and must make ‘a 15 particular and specific demonstration of fact as distinguished from stereotypical and conclusory 16 statements’ supporting the need for a protective order.” Silcox v. forbidding inquiry into certain matters, or limiting the scope of 9 disclosure or discovery to certain matters.” “A party can move for a protective order in regard to 10 a subpoena issued to a non-party if it believes its own interests are jeopardized by discovery 11 sought from a third party and has standing under Rule 26(c) to seek a protective order regarding 12 subpoenas issued to non-parties which seek irrelevant information.” In re REMEC, Inc. 26(c)(1) permits the Court to, “for good cause, issue 7 an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue 8 burden or expense, including. 26(b)(1), “arties may obtain discovery regarding any 5 nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the 6 needs of the case.” However, Fed. The Court will rule on each set of discovery in 2 turn.

THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENAS - 1 1 communications by the Third-Party Platforms. The second set of subpoenas seek a greater variety of information, such as research and 24 ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE. Both the first set of subpoenas (which Double Down wants to quash) and the discovery request (which Plaintiffs want to compel a response to) seek information about virtual chip transactions for customers of Double Down’s casino-gaming apps, which are carried by the Third Parties Platforms. and Google LLC (collectively “the Third-Party Platforms”) and Plaintiffs Adrienne Benson and Mary Simonson’s Motion to Compel Discovery.

INTRODUCTION THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Double Down Interactive, LLC’s Motions for Protective Order re.

THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENAS DOUBLE DOWN INTERACTIVE, LLC, et al., Defendants. 2:18-cv-00525-RBL ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RE. LEIGHTON 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ADRIENNE BENSON and MARY SIMONSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.

Doubledown classic slots facebook