United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL
J. BRYAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant The Home Depot,
U.S.A., Inc.'s Motion to Compel. Dkt. 15. The Court has
considered the pleadings filed regarding the motion and the
negligence case arises from injuries the Plaintiff alleges
she suffered after tripping and falling at the
Defendant's Poulsbo, Washington store. Dkt. 1-1. On
November 2, 2018, the case was removed from Kitsap County,
Washington Superior Court based on the diversity of the
parties' citizenship and the amount in controversy
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a)(1). Dkt. 1.
December 21, 2018, the Defendant served its first set of
Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to
the Plaintiff. After a few agreed extensions, the Plaintiff
provided her Initial Disclosures and responses to the
Defendant's first set of written discovery. On February
25, 2019, the Defendant wrote the Plaintiff identifying
deficiencies in the responses. The parties again had a
conference and agreed that the Plaintiff would supplement her
answers by March 8, 2019. No. supplements were provided by
March 11, 2019, the Defendant filed this motion to compel and
seeks an award of attorneys' fees. Dkt. 15. On March 27,
2019, it filed a reply, noting that no response to the motion
was filed and again moved the Court for a motion compelling
certain discovery and for an award of attorneys' fees.
Dkt. 18. On March 28, 2019, three days after her response was
due, the Plaintiff filed the declaration of her counsel,
stating that all the sought after discovery was provided.
April 4, 2019, the Defendant's motion was renoted because
it was not clear what, if any, discovery remained to be
compelled. The parties were given an opportunity, if they
wished, to supplement their briefing on whether any discovery
remained and whether sanctions, in the form of an award of
attorneys' fees, should be ordered. The Defendant
responded, and point out, with specificity which discovery
remains and again moves for sanctions of $1, 747.50 in
attorneys' fees. Dkt. 21.
LATE FILED PLEADING
the Plaintiff's response to the motion to compel was
filed late and only appears in the form of a declaration from
counsel, in the interest of fully and fairly considering all
issues, it should be considered.
MOTION TO COMPEL
Civ. p. 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 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
On notice to other parties and all affected persons, a party
may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. The
motion 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.
court should and ordinarily does interpret
‘relevant' very broadly to mean matter that is
relevant to anything that is or may become an issue in the
litigation.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v.
Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351, n.12 (1978)(quoting
4 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 26.56 , p. 26-131 n.
34 (2d ed. 1976)).
Defendant seeks to compel supplements to the Plaintiff's
Initial Disclosures, Interrogatories No. 5, 6, 7, 11 and 14,