United States District Court, W.D. Washington
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion to
Compel. Dkt. #28. Plaintiffs seek an Order compelling
Defendants to produce complete responses to Plaintiffs'
First Requests For Production of Documents. Id.
Defendants oppose the motion, arguing that there was no good
faith meet and confer prior to bringing the motion, and that
it is premature and/or meritless in any event. Dkts. #30 and
#31. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES
27, 2017, Plaintiffs filed the instant employment matter,
alleging claims for breach of contract and deprivation of
wages and willful deprivation of wages in violation of RCW
49.52.050 and RCW 49.52.070. Dkt. #1. Since the filing of the
Complaint and Answers thereto, this matter has proceeded
through the normal course of litigation. Trial is currently
scheduled for August 20, 2018, the discovery deadline is
April 23, 2018, and dispositive motions are due by May 22,
2018. Dkt. #22.
served Defendants X2, Wu, and Flaim with a First Request for
Production of Documents by electronic mail on September 19,
2017, and Defendant Siege by electronic mail and U.S. mail on
September 19 and 21, 2017, respectively. Dkt. #29 at ¶ 3
and Ex. A thereto. Defendants X2, Wu and Flaim accepted
service in electronic form, and therefore, pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, their responses were due
by or before October 19, 2017. Defendant Siege did not
respond to Plaintiffs' request for acceptance of service
electronically, accordingly his responses were due on or
around October 24, 2017.
October 10, 2017, counsel for Defendants X2, Wu and Flaim
emailed Plaintiffs' counsel and explained that gathering
documents and responses were proving difficult, and that he
expected to have responses and documents by November 9, 2017.
Dkt. #29, Ex. B. He asked counsel to respond if they needed
to discuss the matter further. Id. Plaintiffs'
counsel responded that she would allow an extension of time
until November 2, 2017, for X2, provided that she received
responses from Defendants Wu and Flaim by October 19, 2017.
Dkt. # 29, Ex. C.
October 19, 2017, Plaintiffs received responses and
objections from Defendants Wu, Flaim and Siege. Dkt. #29,
Exs. D-1, D-2 and D-3. On November 2, 2017, Defendant
X2's counsel emailed Plaintiffs' counsel to notify
her that X2's objections and responses would be complete
on November 3, 2017. Dkt. #29, Ex. E. Plaintiffs' counsel
agreed to receive the responses on November 3rd. Id.
On November 3rd, Defendant X2's counsel sent another
email stating there was an additional delay. Dkt. #29, Ex. F.
Defendant X2's responses and objections were provided to
Plaintiffs on November 4, 2017. Dkt. #29 at ¶ 10 and Ex.
H thereto. That same day, Plaintiffs' counsel emailed
counsel for Defendants X2, Wu and Flaim, stating that if
responsive documents were not received, she would file a
motion to compel. Dkt. #29, Ex. I. On November 9, 2017,
Plaintiffs received a document production from Defendants X2,
Wu and Flaim. Dkt. #29 at ¶ 13.
meantime, on November 3rd, Plaintiffs' counsel sent email
correspondence to Defendant Siege's counsel, stating that
she had received objections, but no responses, and inquiring
as to when responses to discovery would be forthcoming. Dkt.
#29, Ex. G. Plaintiffs' counsel sent additional
correspondence to Defendant Siege's counsel on November
6th and 9th. Defendant Siege's counsel responded that
they were working on producing responsive documents, and that
he would be happy to schedule a meet and confer if necessary.
Dkt. #29, Ex. J.
November 15, 2017, Plaintiffs' counsel sent email
correspondence to all defense counsel asking for a meet and
confer. Dkt. #29, Ex. K. On November 17, 2017,
Plaintiffs' counsel had separate telephonic meet and
confers with defense counsel. Dkt. #29 at ¶ ¶
November 29, 2017, Defendant Siege's counsel sent email
correspondence to Plaintiffs' counsel stating that a
secure FTP was being set up to access electronically
searchable documents, and asking that a Protective Order be
signed as some of the documents would be marked confidential.
Dkt. #29, Ex. L. Plaintiffs' counsel agreed to sign, with
one minor change to the proposed order, and asked when
documents would be produced. Dkt. #29, Ex. M.
December 5, 2017, Plaintiffs' counsel sent email
correspondence to counsel for Defendants X2, Wu and Flaim,
noting that it had been two and a half weeks since the meet
and confer and nothing had been produced. Dkt. #29, Ex. N.
Plaintiffs' counsel again noted that she would be forced
to file a motion to compel if no documents were produced.
Id. Plaintiffs' counsel sent the same
correspondence to Defendant Siege's counsel. Id.
Defendant Siege's counsel responded that he had been
waiting for comments on the proposed Protective Order from
co-Defendants' counsel. Dkt. #29, Ex. O. Correspondence
regarding the proposed protective order continued over the
next several weeks. Dkt. #29, Exs. P-BB.
receiving no further documents, and having failed to finalize
a proposed Protective Order, Plaintiffs' counsel filed
the instant motion on January 10, 2018. Dkt. #28. The motion
is now ripe for review.