United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge.
matter comes before the Court on Defendant Fred Meyer
Stores' (“Defendant” or “Fred
Meyer”) motion to compel discovery and motion to compel
an independent medical examination. Dkt. # 89. Plaintiff
opposes the motion. Dkt. # 97.
Court has broad discretion to control discovery. Hallett
v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002); see
also Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d
828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011), In re Sealed Case, 856
F.2d 268, 271 (D.C. Cir. 1988). That discretion is guided by
several principles. Most importantly, the scope of discovery
is broad. A party must respond to any discovery request that
is not privileged and 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.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
party refuses to respond to discovery, the requesting party
“may move for an order compelling disclosure or
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 Saunders, Inc.,
175 F.R.D. 646, 650 (C.D. Cal. 1997).
argues that Plaintiff has continually failed to adequately
disclose computations for future medical expenses, lost
earning capacity, or future earnings. Dkt. # 89 at 6.
Defendant contends that Plaintiff has not produced evidence
beyond 2016-17 to support a wage loss claim. Id. at
8. The Court finds that these calculations are relevant and
instrumental to the resolution of this matter, and the Court
agrees that the record supports Defendant's motion.
Moreover, Plaintiff's brief in opposition does not
sufficiently respond to these issues. Accordingly, the Court
GRANTS Defendant's motion; Plaintiff may
not present evidence beyond the tax returns she already
produced to support her claims for wage loss, future medical
expenses, and lost earning capacity.
further moves the Court for an order compelling Plaintiff to
produce responses with regard to five discovery requests.
Id. at 9-11 (seeking production for Interrogatory
Nos. 4, 5, 7, 11 and Request for Production No. 4). Each of
the requests are directly related to Plaintiff's claims
and theories of recovery, and Plaintiff's responses are
necessary for Defendant's defense preparation.
Plaintiff's brief in opposition does not adequately
explain why she has failed to diligently respond to
Defendant's requests. The Court therefore
GRANTS the motion and orders Plaintiff to
supplement each response and produce discovery no later than
ten (10) days from the date of this order. If Plaintiff has
issues complying with this deadline, she is directed to
immediately meet and confer with Defendant's counsel to
reach a mutually agreed upon production timeline.
Defendant moves the Court for an order compelling Plaintiff
to sit for an independent medical examination (IME) with Dr.
Vandenbelt. Id. at 11. The Court has discretion to
do so for good cause under Rule 35. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 35(a)(1) (“The court . . may order a party whose
mental or physical condition . . . is in controversy to
submit to a physical or mental examination by a suitably
licensed or certified examiner.”). Plaintiff does not
appear to oppose this request, as she had previously
submitted available dates for an IME in December 2017. Dkt. #
97 at 10. The Court finds good cause to order Plaintiff to
sit for an IME with Dr. Vandenbelt. The Court therefore
GRANTS Defendant's motion and orders the
parties to meet and confer to mutually agree on a date and
time to complete this exam. However, the Court instructs the
parties to agree on a date and time that is within fourteen
(14) days from the date of this Order.
foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS
Defendant's motion. Dkt. # 89. This Order does not
operate to extend any discovery deadlines that have already
passed; it is narrowly tailored to the issues presented in
 The Court strongly disfavors footnoted
legal citations. Footnoted citations serve as an end-run
around page limits and formatting requirements dictated by
the Local Rules. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR
7(e). Moreover, several courts have observed that
“citations are highly relevant in a legal brief”
and including them in footnotes “makes brief-reading
difficult.” Wichansky v. Zowine, No.
CV-13-01208-PHX-DGC, 2014 WL 289924, at *1 (D. Ariz. Jan. 24,
2014). The Court strongly discourages the Parties from