NIRP Pasadena PLLC et al v. Medstreaming LLC et al

RESPONSE

W.D. Wash.February 19, 2019

PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS- 1 [2:17-cv-01607-TSZ] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 PHILLIPS BURGESS PLLC 724 Columbia Street NW, Suite 320 Olympia, Washington 98501 Telephone: (360) 742-3500 Facsimile: (360) 742-3519 THE HONORABLE THOMAS S. ZILLY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON NIRP PASADENA, PLLC, and NIRP SUGAR LAND, PLLC, Plaintiffs, v. MEDSTREAMING, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; WAEL ELSEAIDY, an individual; RYAN PLASCH, an individual, Defendants. No. 2:17-cv-01607-TSZ PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS Noted on Motion Calendar: Friday, February 22, 2019 Oral Argument Requested I. INTRODUCTION On February 4, 2019, Defendants moved this court for sanctions (Defendants’ Motion) against Plaintiffs alleging “bad faith” and “discovery abuse.” Although there was initial deficiency in producing evidence, Plaintiffs subsequently cured the deficiency on its own initiative. Plaintiffs’ conduct is far from abusive and certainly not in bad faith. For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court deny Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions. Case 2:17-cv-01607-TSZ Document 72 Filed 02/19/19 Page 1 of 13 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS- 2 [2:17-cv-01607-TSZ] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 PHILLIPS BURGESS PLLC 724 Columbia Street NW, Suite 320 Olympia, Washington 98501 Telephone: (360) 742-3500 Facsimile: (360) 742-3519 Defendants, Medstreaming LLC, et al. (collectively “Medstreaming”), claim that Plaintiffs, NIRP Pasadena, PLLC and NIRP Sugar Land, PLLC (collectively “NIRP”), in its response to Medstreaming’s production requests: (1) intentionally withheld evidence; (2) falsely certified completion of the production; (3) attempted to cover-up the withholding of the evidence; and (4) over-produced large amounts of evidence. In analyzing the present facts, it is extremely important to note the difference before and after the arrival of NIRP’s in-house counsel. NIRP did not have in-house legal counsel when discovery began and relied on its management’s best judgment to coordinate with its then- outside counsel.1 NIRP management honestly believed that: (1) NIRP's dealing with the vender of the replacement product, Braintree, was irrelevant to the dispute between itself and Medstreaming; and that (2) pursuant to the contractual agreements between itself and Braintree, NIRP was legally obligated to preserve the confidence of its dealings with Braintree and to protect Braintree’s trade secrets from a direct competitor (Medstreaming). Realizing the need for internal legal guidance, NIRP took action and hired in-house counsel. Since the arrival of in-house counsel, the deficiency in its discovery response has been cured. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. The Complaint NIRP is a medical services provider who relies on integrated computer software to perform its peripheral artery disease (PAD) procedures as well as for business management. 1 NIRP’s then-outside-counsel, Ms. Lori Hood of Baker Donelson and Mr. Lawrence Cock of Corr Cronin Michelson Baumgardner Fogg & Moore LLP, who were involved in the discovery in question, have been substituted by current outside counsel, Mr. Tadeu Velloso of Phillips Burgess PLLC, who did not participate in the discovery in question. Case 2:17-cv-01607-TSZ Document 72 Filed 02/19/19 Page 2 of 13 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS- 3 [2:17-cv-01607-TSZ] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 PHILLIPS BURGESS PLLC 724 Columbia Street NW, Suite 320 Olympia, Washington 98501 Telephone: (360) 742-3500 Facsimile: (360) 742-3519 Medstreaming, the Defendant in this matter, is a software developer who claims to be an expert in the medical industry. Huang-Sigle Decl. ¶¶ 3(a) & (b). In 2016, Medstreaming sold NIRP its “All in One” workflow software, a computer program designed to cover every aspect of NIRP’s practice and related operational needs. The software failed to perform as described. After repeated attempts to fix the software’s technical problems, NIRP and Medstreaming stopped their efforts to remedy the issues. Id. at ¶¶ 3(c). NIRP was forced to acquire a replacement software known as “Braintree.” NIRP then brought the present cause of action against Medstreaming. Id. at ¶¶ 3(a)-(e). B. NIRP Did Not Withhold Evidence With The Intent To Deprive Medstreaming Of The Information, It Did So To Protect Itself From Potential Legal Liability Against Braintree In its discovery requests, Medstreaming demanded, in relevant part, “all documents or communications concerning software or other technology (other than Medstreaming) that you have reviewed, examined, or utilized . . .” Dkt. 69, at 3 (¶ B); Dkt. 45, Exs. B, C & E. The requests were extremely far-reaching; there were no time limits for the evidence sought. NIRP’s management found itself balancing two competing legal obligations. On the one hand, it must produce evidence as requested; on the other, it was bound by the confidentiality clauses in its license agreements with Braintree. Huang-Sigle Decl., ¶¶ 3(g)-(i), Ex. A. Medstreaming and Braintree are direct competitors. As such, any information concerning Braintree would give Medstreaming the opportunity to learn the inner working of its competitor. Given NIRP’s ongoing relationship with Braintree, NIRP management was concerned about the potential fall-out resulting from revealing the documents in contravention to the explicit contract terms. Id. Furthermore, NIRP management reasoned that since Braintree is not a party to the Case 2:17-cv-01607-TSZ Document 72 Filed 02/19/19 Page 3 of 13 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS- 4 [2:17-cv-01607-TSZ] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 PHILLIPS BURGESS PLLC 724 Columbia Street NW, Suite 320 Olympia, Washington 98501 Telephone: (360) 742-3500 Facsimile: (360) 742-3519 lawsuit, the dealings between NIRP and Braintree bore no relevance to the present matter. After much debate and discussion among the members of the management team, NIRP concluded that its contractual obligation to maintain confidentiality with Braintree precluded it from disclosing the Braintree documents in this matter. In the meantime, NIRP produced a large amount of evidence that is directly relevant to the case. Id. C. NIRP’s Outside Counsel Did Not Falsely Certify Completion Of Production Intentionally NIRP did not have in-house counsel during the beginning stages of discovery. Consequently, its management exercised the best judgment based on its understanding of the situation and believed that it produced all the required documents. NIRP then represented to its then-outside counsel, Ms. Lori Hood, that its production was complete. In August 2018, after confirming with NIRP, Ms. Hood certified to the Court that NIRP’s production was complete. Id. ¶¶ 3(j) & (k). D. NIRP Hired In-house Counsel To Provide Internal Legal Guidance And Bridge The Gap Between Itself And Outside Counsel NIRP relied on outside counsel to guide it through the legal proceedings. However, then- outside counsel’s involvement was often limited due to NIRP’s financial concerns. And although helpful, outside counsel did not have sufficient understanding of the business, which occasionally led to miscommunication between the attorneys and NIRP. Realizing the disconnect with then-outside counsel, NIRP hired in-house counsel. NIRP anticipated that the new in-house counsel would participate in NIRP’s day-to-day management, be able to better understand the operations of the business, and, most importantly, provide NIRP’s management with readily accessible legal knowledge and advice. NIRP’s in-house counsel, Liyue Huang-Sigle, came on board in November 2018. Case 2:17-cv-01607-TSZ Document 72 Filed 02/19/19 Page 4 of 13 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS- 5 [2:17-cv-01607-TSZ] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 PHILLIPS BURGESS PLLC 724 Columbia Street NW, Suite 320 Olympia, Washington 98501 Telephone: (360) 742-3500 Facsimile: (360) 742-3519 Huang-Sigle Decl.¶ 2. As soon as December 2018, under in-house counsel’s supervision, NIRP started to produce Braintree documents previously believed by the NIRP management to be confidential and irrelevant. Id. at ¶ 12. E. There Was No Cover-up On The Part Of NIRP 1. NIRP’s Effort To Claw-Back The Inadvertently Disclosed Documents Was Not A Cover Up Medstreaming alleges that NIRP engaged in “cover-up of falsehood.” Dkt. 69, at 5 (¶ G). The allegations refer to NIRP’s certificate of completed production and the subsequent inadvertent disclosure of the Braintree contracts. As discussed above, NIRP’s certificate of production completion was not an intentional lie, but a statement based on management’s honest, albeit mistaken, representation to Ms. Hood, NIRP’s then-outside counsel, of NIRP's legal position regarding its fulfillment of discovery obligations. Huang-Sigle Decl., ¶¶ 3(j) & (k). In-house counsel joined NIRP in November 2018. Id, ¶ 2. On December 18, 2018 (shortly after in-house counsel came on board and while Ms. Hood was still retained), in-house counsel learned from Ms. Hood that Medstreaming had issued a subpoena duces tecum to Braintree. Id. at ¶ 5. That was the first time both the in-house counsel as well as Ms. Hood became aware of the issue with Braintree document production. With in-house counsel’s guidance, NIRP worked through the Christmas and New Year’s holidays and produced the first batch of Braintree documents within ten days. Id. at ¶ 12. In the following ten days, NIRP produced more than eight thousand Braintree communications. Id. ¶ 15. When the first two Braintree documents were uncovered within NIRP, in a confidential email communication with Ms. Hood, in-house counsel attached these two documents and inadvertently copied Medstreaming’s attorneys. Id. at ¶ 9. Case 2:17-cv-01607-TSZ Document 72 Filed 02/19/19 Page 5 of 13 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS- 6 [2:17-cv-01607-TSZ] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 PHILLIPS BURGESS PLLC 724 Columbia Street NW, Suite 320 Olympia, Washington 98501 Telephone: (360) 742-3500 Facsimile: (360) 742-3519 Upon realizing the mistake, in-house counsel immediately reached out to Medstreaming’s attorneys and requested to “return, sequester, or destroy” the email together with the attachments under the authority of Washington Supreme Court Rule 26(b)(6) (the “claw-back rule”). Id. at ¶ 10; Dkt. 70-1, at 45. NIRP’s utilization of the claw-back rule was not an attempt to cover-up, but a remedial action to correct an honest mistake. With this knowledge, Medstreaming nevertheless attributed in-house counsel’s attempt to correct the mistake as a “cover-up,” and used it as a basis to file this Motion. 2. NIRP’s Claims Of Confidentiality And Irrelevance Of The Documents Were A Good Faith Attempt To Negotiate The Discoverability Of The Documents, And Not A “Cover-up” After the inadvertent disclosure and subsequent claw-back of the Braintree documents, NIRP’s in-house counsel entered into discussions with Medstreaming’s attorney claiming that these documents were confidential or irrelevant. Huang-Sigle Decl., ¶ 11. NIRP’s in-house counsel never denied the existence of these documents. In fact, she was merely negotiating the non-discoverability of the Braintree documents. As NIRP’s legal representative, in-house counsel was bound to zealously protect NIRP’s interest, especially when NIRP’s management had a legitimate concern over the confidentiality of the documents. In-house counsel was entitled to explore the possibility that Medstreaming might see no value in these documents and would be willing to forego the production requests. When Medstreaming expressed interest in these documents, NIRP promptly produced them without incident. Id. ¶ 12. Once again, Medstreaming misleadingly pointed to the series of good faith exchanges and claimed “cover-up.” F. The Alleged “Thousands Of Documents” Are Mostly Meeting Invites Multiplied By The Number Of Recipients and Containing No Valuable Information Case 2:17-cv-01607-TSZ Document 72 Filed 02/19/19 Page 6 of 13 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS- 7 [2:17-cv-01607-TSZ] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 PHILLIPS BURGESS PLLC 724 Columbia Street NW, Suite 320 Olympia, Washington 98501 Telephone: (360) 742-3500 Facsimile: (360) 742-3519 After the incident of inadvertent disclosure and its resolution, NIRP continued to produce evidence concerning Braintree. Id. at ¶¶ 13-15. Although the number of communications went up to some 8,500, they are mostly meeting invites. Id. at ¶ 15(a). Medstreaming questioned NIRP on multiple occasions whether there were more communications between NIRP and Braintree besides the few emails. Each time, NIRP explained to Medstreaming that most of the communication between itself and Braintree occurred via teleconferences, meetings, and demonstrations due to the very fact that Medstreaming’s software failed and NIRP needed immediate replacement. Medstreaming was not satisfied. Id. at ¶ 15. To dispel Medstreaming’s suspicion, NIRP produced all communications with Braintree, which consisted mostly of meeting invites that contain no useful data. Id. at ¶ 15. Numerous individuals from both NIRP and Braintree were invited to the meetings, especially when the functionality of Braintree’s product or the training thereof was the subject of the meeting. Id. at ¶ 15(d). The number of these meeting invites grew exponentially when multiplied by the number of invitees, and further multiplied by the number of times a meeting was rescheduled. This resulted in “thousands of documents.” Id. Admittedly, among the “thousands of documents,” there is group email chains circulated among NIRP personnel. Id. at ¶ 15(e). These emails account only for a small portion of the total production. Id. Similar to the meeting invites, numerous individuals participated in these group discussions resulting in the same communications being repeated and the volume multiplied by the number of individuals copied. Id. The undeniable truth is that the alleged “thousands of documents” are mostly meeting invites, which bear no substantive information. Id. at ¶ 15(a). Case 2:17-cv-01607-TSZ Document 72 Filed 02/19/19 Page 7 of 13 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS- 8 [2:17-cv-01607-TSZ] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 PHILLIPS BURGESS PLLC 724 Columbia Street NW, Suite 320 Olympia, Washington 98501 Telephone: (360) 742-3500 Facsimile: (360) 742-3519 III. ARGUMENT A. There Is No Bad Faith Or Willful Disobedience Of Court Order On The Part Of NIRP The court’s inherent power to impose sanction must be supported by the finding that “the litigant . . . engaged in bad faith or willful disobedience of a court order.” Fink v. Gomez, 239 F. 3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Chambers v. NASCO, 501 U.S. 32, 46-47 (1991)). Sanctions are available if the court “finds bad faith or conduct tantamount to bad faith” Id. at 994. In determining sanctions, the court will consider whether the conduct at issue classifies as “willful action, including recklessness when combined with an additional factor such as frivolousness, harassment, or an improper purpose.” Id. Notably, “sanctions are appropriate only in ‘extreme circumstances’ and where the violation is ‘due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the party.” U.S. v. Kahaluu Constr. Co., Inc., 857 F.2d 600, 603 (9th Cir. 1988) (Citation omitted). Here, NIRP did not act in bad faith, nor was there willful misconduct or disobedience of any court order in its production of evidence. At the outset of discovery, NIRP relied on the best judgment of its management to determine which documents were responsive to Medstreaming’s discovery requests. Huang-Sigle Decl. ¶¶ 3(f)-(i). When realizing the need for in-house legal guidance, it promptly employed one. Id. at ¶ 4. With the assistance of in-house counsel, NIRP worked through the Christmas and New Year’s holidays, and produced more than eight thousand documents in twenty days. Id. at ¶¶ 7, 12-15. In addition, in-house counsel’s initial request to “return, sequester, or destroy” following an inadvertent disclosure of the licensing agreements with Braintree was a remedial action to remedy its mistake. Id. at ¶¶ 9 & 10. It was not intended as a response to Medstreaming’s discovery requests. Case 2:17-cv-01607-TSZ Document 72 Filed 02/19/19 Page 8 of 13 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS- 9 [2:17-cv-01607-TSZ] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 PHILLIPS BURGESS PLLC 724 Columbia Street NW, Suite 320 Olympia, Washington 98501 Telephone: (360) 742-3500 Facsimile: (360) 742-3519 NIRP’s in-house counsel never denied the existence of these documents. Id. at ¶ 11. She merely negotiated the discoverability of the documents with Medstreaming by claiming that these documents were confidential or irrelevant. Id. at ¶ 11. NIRP’s claims were not without merit. NIRP had a contractual obligation to maintain the confidence of its dealings with Braintree, and that its ongoing relationship with Braintree has long ceased concerning the transition from Medstreaming to Braintree. Id. at ¶ 15(c). At any rate, these documents are of marginal value to the present lawsuit. NIRP hoped that Medstreaming would agree with this assessment and be willing to proceed without them. When Medstreaming insisted, NIRP promptly produced these documents without the Court’s intervention. Id. at ¶¶ 11 & 12. In producing the inadvertently disclosed documents as well as subsequent thousands of other documents, NIRP conducted itself in a diligent and timely manner. NIRP did not act in bad faith or willfully disobey any court order. As such, sanctions are not justified here. B. Medstreaming’s Request For The Court To Dismiss The Lawsuit Is Unduly Harsh In Defendants’ Motion, Medstreaming repeatedly suggests that the Court should dismiss NIRP’s cause of action as a punishment for its “bad faith” conduct and “discovery abuse.” As demonstrated above, NIRP did not act in bad faith or abuse the discovery process in its response to Medstreaming’s discovery requests. In fact, it took the initiative to cure the initial deficiency and acted diligently in its cooperation with Medstreaming. Regardless, the sanction of dismissal here would be extreme. “Because the sanction of dismissal is such a harsh penalty, the district court must weigh five factors before imposing dismissal: 1. the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; Case 2:17-cv-01607-TSZ Document 72 Filed 02/19/19 Page 9 of 13 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS- 10 [2:17-cv-01607-TSZ] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 PHILLIPS BURGESS PLLC 724 Columbia Street NW, Suite 320 Olympia, Washington 98501 Telephone: (360) 742-3500 Facsimile: (360) 742-3519 2. the court’s need to manage its dockets; 3. the risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions; 4. the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and 5. the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Porter v. Martinez, 941 F.2d 732, 733 (9th Cir. 1991) (citations and internal punctuation omitted); see Holmquist v. Exotic Cars at Caesars Palace, LLC, 2:07-CV-0298-RLHGWF, 2008 WL 4491551, at *5–6 (D. Nev. Sept. 29, 2008) (citing Henry v. Gill Industries, 983 F.2d 943, 948 (9th Cir.1993)). While the Court should consider all five factors, “[t]he first two of these factors favor the imposition of sanctions in most cases, while the fourth cuts against a dismissal sanction. Thus the key factors are prejudice and the availability of lesser sanctions.” Henry, 983 F.2d at 948 (citing Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir.1990)). Applying the Porter test, although the public has an interest in expeditious resolution of litigation, it must be balanced against the public policy favoring disposition of the case on its merits. Here, the dispute is one between two private parties, and the delay caused by the initial production deficiency was timely cured by the supplement production. In fact, the parties were able to reach an agreement on the extension of the deadlines, which was granted by the Court without incident. If the Court dismisses the lawsuit, both parties will lose the opportunity to present the merits of their case. Dismissal in such circumstances would undoubtedly be unduly harsh. As discussed below, Medstreaming will not be prejudiced if the Court does not dismiss the present lawsuit. C. Medstreaming Has Not Been Prejudiced Furthermore, Medstreaming claims that it has been prejudiced due to the delay and volume of NIRP’s production. However, any delay that may have occurred before NIRP hired in-house counsel was timely cured and did not cause prejudice to Medstreaming. Case 2:17-cv-01607-TSZ Document 72 Filed 02/19/19 Page 10 of 13 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS- 11 [2:17-cv-01607-TSZ] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 PHILLIPS BURGESS PLLC 724 Columbia Street NW, Suite 320 Olympia, Washington 98501 Telephone: (360) 742-3500 Facsimile: (360) 742-3519 Notwithstanding the cured delay, on January 31, 2019, the parties filed a joint motion to extend the discovery deadline, which has been granted by this Court. Dkt. 68. Under the new case schedule, Medstreaming will be able to fully conduct its depositions free of any adverse effect of NIRP’s initial delay. As a result, Medstreaming is not prejudiced by the initial delay. In Defendants’ Motion, Medstreaming only refers to the total number of documents produced being “more than 8,500 documents”, Dkt. at 7, willfully disregarding NIRP’s good intent and the nature and substance of those documents. Medstreaming’s broad assertion that Medstreaming’s focus on the number of documents produced is an attempt to mislead. The large volume of the production consisted mainly of meeting invites, which bore no valuable data. The production of thousands of meeting invites was for the benefit of Medstreaming who remained unsatisfied with NIRP’s explanation that there had been in deed very few email communications between itself and Braintree. The remaining small portion of the production consisted of group email chains that were reproduced many times over by numerous parties copied on the emails. Ultimately, any delay that occurred prior to NIRP hiring in-house counsel was promptly cured and any prejudice to Medstreaming has been mitigated by the extension of the discovery deadline. IV. CONCLUSION As demonstrated above, in response to Medstreaming’s discovery requests, NIRP acted as any reasonable and prudent business litigant would in the same circumstances. When without in-house legal guidance, NIRP management relied on its best judgment by conducting extensive analysis and discussion among its members to decide what evidence to produce, and faithfully Case 2:17-cv-01607-TSZ Document 72 Filed 02/19/19 Page 11 of 13 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS- 12 [2:17-cv-01607-TSZ] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 PHILLIPS BURGESS PLLC 724 Columbia Street NW, Suite 320 Olympia, Washington 98501 Telephone: (360) 742-3500 Facsimile: (360) 742-3519 carried out that decision. It then promptly secured in-house counsel. With the proper legal guidance, NIRP subsequently extensively produced supplemental discovery. NIRP put forth a good faith effort in curing the deficiency, diligently produced the documents in question, and cooperated with opposing counsel to mitigate any possible harm. For the aforementioned reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court deny Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions. DATED: this 19th day of February, 2019. By: /s/ Tadeu F. Velloso Tadeu F. Velloso, WSBA No. 53616 PHILLIPS BURGESS, PLLC 724 Columbia Street NW, Suite 320 Olympia, Washington 98501 P: (306) 742-3500 Email: tvelloso@phillipsburgesslaw.com By: /s/ Liyue Huang-Sigle Liyue Huang-Sigle Texas Bar No. 24101936 National Interventional Radiology Partners, PLLC 3730 Kirby Drive, Suite 1200 Houston, Texas 77098 P: (832) 779-4779 F: (832) 553-8069 Email: lsigle@nationalirpartners.com ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS Case 2:17-cv-01607-TSZ Document 72 Filed 02/19/19 Page 12 of 13 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS- 13 [2:17-cv-01607-TSZ] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 PHILLIPS BURGESS PLLC 724 Columbia Street NW, Suite 320 Olympia, Washington 98501 Telephone: (360) 742-3500 Facsimile: (360) 742-3519 DECLARATION OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on February 19, 2019, I caused to be electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the following: Hozaifa Y. Cassubhai: hozaifa@baileyduquette.com Eric Wertheim: eric@baileyduquette.com DATED: this 19th day of February, 2019, at Olympia, Washington. By: /s/ Tadeu F. Velloso Tadeu F. Velloso, WSBA No. 53616 PHILLIPS BURGESS, PLLC 724 Columbia Street NW, Suite 320 Olympia, Washington 98501 P: (306) 742-3500 Email: tvelloso@phillipsburgesslaw.com Case 2:17-cv-01607-TSZ Document 72 Filed 02/19/19 Page 13 of 13