United States District Court, W.D. Washington
DAVID T. GILCHRIST LEANNE L. GILCHRIST, Plaintiffs,
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant
David T. Gilchrist, Plaintiff, Pro se, Longview, WA.
Leanne L Gilchrist, Plaintiff, Pro se, Longview, WA.
For Bank of America N.A., BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, MERS, Inc., also known as Mortgage Electronic Registration, MERSCORP, Inc., a Delaware corporation also known as MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. Systems, Inc., FHLMC Freddie Mac, Defendants: Abraham K Lorber, LEAD ATTORNEY, John S Devlin, III, LANE POWELL PC, SEATTLE, WA.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY
ROBERT J. BRYAN, United States District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery (Dkt. 62) and on Plaintiffs' Motion for an Extension of Time to Complete Discovery (Dkt. 69). The Court has reviewed the motions and the remaining file. Because Defendant has responded to Plaintiffs' requests and Plaintiffs have not shown good cause, the Court should deny both motions.
On January 21, 2014, Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit. Dkt. 1. Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (" FDCPA"), Fair Credit Reporting Act (" FCRA") and the Washington Fair Credit Reporting Act (" WFCRA"); violations of the Consumer Protection Act (" CPA"); and violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (" TCPA"). Id. Defendants Bank of America, N.A. (" BANA"), BAC Home Loan Servicing LP, MERS, Inc., MERSCORP, and Freddie Mac (" BANA Defendants") filed a Partial Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 21) on April 1, 2014, seeking dismissal of every claim but the TCPA claim. On May 5, 2014, this Court granted the Partial Motion to Dismiss, dismissing every claim but the TCPA claim against BANA. Dkt. 42.
On July 2, 2014, Plaintiffs submitted to BANA twenty-seven Requests for Production, twenty-one Interrogatories, and fifty-eight Requests for Admissions. Dkt. 62-3. BANA stated in its Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel (Dkt. 65) (" Opposition") that it responded to Plaintiffs' July 2, 2014 requests on September 2, 2014, with answers, objections, and 477 pages of documents. Dkt. 65 at p. 3; see also Dkts. 62-4, 62-5, and 62-6. Mr. Lorber, BANA's attorney, claimed in his Declaration (Dkt. 66) that the produced documents included documents relevant to the TCPA claim, a log of calls placed to Plaintiffs, and histories of all correspondences between BANA and Plaintiffs. Dkt. 66 at p. 1; see also Dkt. 65 at p. 3.
On October 6, 2014, Plaintiffs sent BANA a letter claiming that BANA's objections to Plaintiffs' requests were improper and requesting that BANA respond with proper answers immediately. Dkt. 62-12 at p. 2. BANA responded to Plaintiffs on October 14, 2014, objecting that Plaintiffs' requests, among other things, called for legal conclusions. Dkt. 62-13. The legal conclusions Plaintiff was asking BANA to make, BANA claimed in its Opposition (Dkt. 65), were the questions the case revolved around. Id. (citing, for example, the definition of an " automatic telephone dialing system"). BANA also provided, in response, a copy of the manual for the phone used to call Plaintiffs. Dkt. 62-13. Plaintiffs responded to BANA on October 15, 2014, that they disagreed with BANA's objections and threatened to file a motion to compel discovery. Dkt. 62-14. On October 21, 2014, BANA responded to Plaintiffs with explanations of BANA's objections to Plaintiffs' requests. Dkt. 62-15. Mr. Lorber, in his Declaration (Dkt. 66), also contended that BANA provided Plaintiff with 498 more pages of documents on October 21, 2014. Dkt. 66 at p. 3. On October 23, 2014, Plaintiffs filed this Motion to Compel Discovery (Dkt. 62). BANA responded on November 3, 2014, with its Opposition (Dkt. 65). On November 5, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Extension of Discovery and Pretrial Dates (Dkt. 67). On November 7, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel (Dkt. 68). BANA filed its Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Discovery and Pretrial Dates (Dkt. 69) on November 10, 2014. Plaintiffs replied on November 14, 2014 with their " Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Extension of Discovery and Pretrial Dates" (Dkt. 70).
A. Motion to Compel Discovery
1. Legal Standard
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides:
Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense--including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant ...