Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wilson v. State

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma

February 8, 2017

JEFFREY L. WILSON, Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL

          BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge.

         This matter comes before the Court on Jeffrey L. Wilson's (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel discovery. Dkt. 33. The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby grants the motion in part and denies it in part for the reasons stated herein.

         I. BACKGROUND

         On September 7, 2016, Plaintiff served Defendants with interrogatories and requests for production. Dkt. 34 at 2. On October 25, 2016, Defendants replied to the interrogatories, raising numerous objections. Dkt. 36 at 2. On November 15, 2016, the parties' attorneys met and conferred regarding a proposed stipulated protective order and Plaintiff asserted that the discovery responses were inadequate. Dkt. 34 at 2. On November 16, 2016, the parties entered into a protective order regarding the disclosure and filing of certain confidential records. Dkt. 32. On November 17, 2016, counsel for Defendants stated in an email to Plaintiff's counsel that the requested discovery would be issued in “rolling productions given the size the [sic] document production that will happen.” Dkt. 36 at 18.

         On November 21 and 22, 2016, Defendants provided supplemental responses to Plaintiff's discovery requests. Dkt. 34 at 3. On November 23, 2016, after an exchange of emails, the parties' attorneys met and conferred regarding Defendants' supplemental responses. Id.; Dkt. 36 at 2. After Plaintiff's counsel voiced concerns over the objections raised by Defendants and the lack of organization to the produced documents, the parties' attorneys agreed to meet and confer again on December 2, 2016. Dkt. 34 at 4. On December 2, 2016, the parties met and conferred, and counsel for Defendants stated that she would respond to the concerns of Plaintiff's counsel in correspondence by December 9, 2016. Dkt. 36 at 3.

         On December 5, 2016, Defendants provided another supplemental response. Dkt. 34 at 4. On December 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant motion to compel discovery. Dkt. 33. On December 9 and 19, 2016, Defendants again supplemented their discovery. Dkt. 36 at 3. On December 19, 2016, Defendants also responded to the motion to compel.[1]Dkt. 35. On December 23, 2016, Plaintiff replied. Dkt. 23.

         II. DISCUSSION

         Plaintiff moves to compel discovery on its propounded interrogatories and four specific requests for production. Dkt. 33 at 8-10. Under the discovery procedures set forth in the Federal Rules, parties “may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party.” Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005). If a party fails to produce requested discovery, the requesting party may move for an order compelling disclosure. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1). “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 its objections.” Brown v. Warner, No. C09-1546RSM, 2015 WL 630926, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 12, 2015) (quoting Cable & Computer Tech., Inc. v. Lockheed Saunders, Inc., 175 F.R.D. 646, 650 (C.D. Cal. 1997)).

         A. Meet and Confer

         Under Rule 37, a motion to compel “must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1). See also LCR 37(a)(1). The parties' attorneys met and conferred telephonically on multiple instances prior to the filing of this motion. Although counsel for Defendants stated on December 2, 2016, that she would further respond to the concerns of Plaintiff's counsel by correspondence, it is apparent that the parties have not resolved Plaintiff's stated concerns, despite multiple telephonic conferences. The Court finds that the telephonic conference that occurred on December 2, 2016, satisfied the meet and confer requirement. Further, the declaration of Darryl Parker (Dkt. 34) satisfies the requirements in LCR 37(a)(1) regarding a certification of compliance with the meet and confer requirement.

         B. Organization of Discovery Production

         Rule 33(d) allows parties to “answer an interrogatory by specifying records from which the answers may be obtained and by making the records available for inspection.” Rainbow Pioneer No. 44-18-04A v. Hawaii-Nevada Inv. Corp., 711 F.2d 902, 906 (9th Cir. 1983). Nonetheless, while Rule 33(d) protects parties from having to sift through their business records to prepare the opposing party's case, it still requires that responding parties specify relevant records “in sufficient detail to enable the responding party to locate and identify them as readily as the responding party could.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(d)(1).

         Additionally, Rule 33(d) does not supplant a party's duty to adequately label and identify responsive documents under Rule 34. Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i) states that “[a] party must produce documents as they are kept in the usual course of business or must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the request.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2)(E)(i). “Courts have recognized that organizing a production to reflect how the information is kept ‘in the usual course of business' may require the producing party to include different identifying information according to the type of document or file produced.” City of Colton v. Am. Promotional Events, Inc., 277 F.R.D. 578, 585 (C.D. Cal. 2011).

While the specific information a producing party must provide when organizing a production “in the usual course of business” may vary in its details according to the type of document or file produced, it is clear that parties are entitled under the Federal Rules to rationally organized productions so that they may readily ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.