United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ORDER DENYING LCR 37 MOTION
W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge
April 10, 2019, Plaintiff Jesus Chavez Flores filed a
“LCR 37 Submission Regarding Plaintiff's Requests
for Production (“Motion to Compel”), ”
requesting the Court compel ICE Defendants to respond to
discovery requests. Dkt. 177. After reviewing the relevant
record, the Court finds the parties are not at an impasse
regarding two of the four requests for production at issue.
Further, Plaintiff has failed to show the relevancy of the
two remaining requests for production. Accordingly, the
Motion (Dkt. 177) is denied.
Background and Legal Standard
filed the Motion, wherein he requests the Court compel ICE
Defendants to produce the documents requested in Request for
Production (“RFP”) Nos. 3-5 from Plaintiff's
First Set of Requests for Production and RFP No. 3 from
Plaintiff's Second Set of Requests for Production.
See Dkt. 177.
may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged information
that is relevant to any claim or defense in his or her case.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Once the party seeking discovery has
established the request meets this relevancy requirement,
“the party opposing discovery has the burden of showing
that the discovery should be prohibited, and the burden of
clarifying, explaining or supporting its objections.”
Bryant v. Ochoa, 2009 WL 1390794, at *1 (S.D. Cal.
May 14, 2009). When a party believes the responses to his
discovery requests are incomplete, or contain unfounded
objections, he may move the court for an order compelling
disclosure. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37. The movant must show he
conferred, or made a good faith effort to confer, with the
party opposing disclosure before seeking court intervention.
Id.; see also Local Civil Rule
Meet and Confer
time, the evidence shows the parties are still engaged in the
discovery process regarding RFP No. 3 of the First Set of
Requests for Production and RFP No. 3 of the Second Set of
Requests for Production. See Dkt. 177. Therefore,
the parties have failed to show they have conferred in good
faith and reached an impasse before seeking Court
Motion, ICE Defendants assert that Plaintiff, for the first
time, has suggested a willingness to narrow RFP No. 3 of the
First Set of Requests for Production. Dkt. 177, p. 13. While
Plaintiff denies this is the first time he has suggested
narrowing the scope of this RFP, Plaintiff states he is
willing to confer with ICE Defendants to provide assistance
in search terms related to the now-narrowed request. See
id. at p. 14. As such, the Court finds the parties have
not reached an impasse regarding RFP No. 3 of the First Set
of Requests for Production.
evidence also shows ICE Defendants are still searching for
and attempting to produce documents related to RFP No. 3 of
the Second Set of Requests for Production. Dkt. 179, Morehead
Dec., ¶¶ 5-6. Further, Plaintiff states that, if
ICE Defendants are willing to certify all responsive
documents have been provided by GEO Defendants, he will
withdraw the request. Dkt. 177, p. 27. As ICE Defendants are
“working on this request, ” there is no
indication the parties have met and conferred and have
reached an impasse.
above stated reasons, the Court finds the parties have not
reached an impasse regarding RFP Nos. 3 from both the First
and Second Set of Requests for Production. Accordingly, the
Court finds the Motion is premature as to RFP Nos. 3 from the
First and Second Sets of Requests for Production as the
parties have not reached an impasse regarding the alleged
discovery disputes. See Advanced Hair Restoration, LLC v.
Hair Restoration Centers, LLC, 2018 WL 828213, at *2
(W.D. Wash. Feb. 12, 2018) (denying motion to compel where
“[t]here is no evidence that the parties reached an
impasse in their discussions” and defendant was
“attempting in good faith to resolve the discovery
dispute outside of Court by producing the requested
records”); Beasley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co., 2014 WL 1268709, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 25, 2014)
(denying motion to compel when there is no suggestion that
the parties reached impasse before the plaintiff filed his
previously directed, parties should only seek Court
intervention if the parties reach an impasse on a substantive
issue. See Beasley, 2014 WL 1268709 at *3;
Branch Banking & Tr. Co. v. Pebble Creek Plaza,
LLC, 2013 WL 12176465, at *1 (D. Nev. July 26, 2013)
(judicial intervention is appropriate only when
“informal negotiations have reached an impasse on the
substantive issue in dispute”).
Overbroad, Irrelevant Discovery Requests
4 of the First Set of Requests for Production, Plaintiff
requested production of “all documents and
communications referring to or related to hunger strikes at
the Northwest Detention Center, including emails, trainings,
procedures, or protocols from January 1, 2013 to the
present” (“RFP 4”). Dkt. 177, p. 14. In RFP
5 of the First Set of Requests for Production, Plaintiff
requested production of “all documents and
communications referring to or related to the use of
segregation of individuals involved in hunger strikes,
protests, or detainee disturbances at the Northwest Detention
Center, including emails, trainings, procedures, or protocols
from January 1, 2013 to the present” (“RFP
5”). Id. at p. 19.
Defendants state they have produced nearly two thousand pages
of documents in this case, including emails and other
documents related to Plaintiff's alleged participation in
a hunger strike, and ICE's policies, procedures, and
protocols regarding hunger strikes. See Dkt. 177, p.
16; Dkt. 179, Morehead Dec., ¶ 8; Dkt. 180, Bostock
Dec., ¶ 5. ICE Defendants have produced all known
policies, procedures, and protocols regarding hunger strikes.
Dkt. 180, Bostock Dec., ¶ 5. Plaintiff ...