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.

Shokri v. Boeing Co.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington

October 30, 2017

BEHROUZ SHOKRL, Plaintiff,
v.
THE BOEING COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Defendant.

          ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL

          RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel. Dkt. #71. Plaintiff seeks an Order compelling Defendant to produce complete responses to several Interrogatories and Requests for Production, confirming that Defendant has waived any objections to his 30(b)(6) deposition notice, and compelling Defendant to designate 30(b)(6) witnesses on several topics. Id. Defendant opposes the motion. Dkt. #82. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs Motion.

         II. BACKGROUND

         On July 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed the instant employment matter, alleging that he suffered discrimination and retaliation by Defendant because of his race/national origin (Middle Eastern-Iranian), color, accent and ethnicity. Dkt. #1. Plaintiff alleges that he was an exemplary employee who worked for Defendant for over 29 years. Id. at ¶ 2. Plaintiff further alleges that toward the end of 2014, he was assigned a new manager from South Carolina, who almost immediately began discriminating and then retaliating against him, including but not limited to discriminating in the terms and conditions of his employment, unlawfully denying a pay raise, cash award, and promotion, and intentionally discriminating and retaliating against him with regard to his performance and competency evaluations, which directly led to and caused him to be laid off and then terminated from his employment as part of a Reduction In Force ("RTF"). Id. Plaintiff seeks monetary and injunctive relief, including pecuniary and nonpecuniary damages, compensatory damages, and punitive damages. Id. at¶ 3. Defendant has denied Plaintiffs allegations. Dkt. #4.

         Since the filing of the Complaint and Answer, this matter has proceeded through the normal course of litigation. Trial is currently scheduled for January 22, 2018, the discovery deadline was September 25, 2017, and dispositive motions are currently due by October 24, 2017. Dkt. #12.[1]The instant discovery motion is ripe for review.

         III. DISCUSSION

         Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1):

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

         If requested discovery is not answered, the requesting party may move for an order compelling such discovery. 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." Cable & Computer Tech., Inc. v. Lockheed Sanders, Inc., 175 F.R.D. 646, 650 (CD. Cal. 1997).

         On this motion, Plaintiff asks the Court to compel responses from Defendant to several Interrogatories and Requests for Production. Dkt. #71. Plaintiff has made it difficult for the Court to discern which specific requests he asserts are deficient, as he has not organized his brief by specific discovery request, but rather by a description of the types of information and documents he has been seeking. Thus, to the best of the Court's capabilities, it addresses Plaintiffs motion as follows.

         A. Interrogatory No. 5 and Requests for Production F and I.

         Plaintiff first appears to seek further responses to his Interrogatory No. 5 and Requests for Production F and I. Dkt. #71 at 8. Plaintiffs Interrogatory No. 5, the corresponding Request for Production I, and Defendant's responses state:

INTERROGATORY NO. 5: If you contend that Plaintiff was properly classified as a System and Data Analyst 4 (BAMA) instead of a Programmer Analyst 4 (BAMB), describe in detail the facts, circumstances and reasoning for that contention. Include in your response an explanation of Plaintiff s job duties and responsibilities and the projects ...

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.