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.

Neely v. The Boeing Co.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

May 20, 2019

MICHAEL NEELY, Plaintiff,
v.
THE BOEING COMPANY, Defendant.

          ORDER

          JOHN C. COUGHENOUR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for sanctions against Defendant for failing to produce discovery and witnesses (Dkt. No. 110). Having thoroughly considered the parties' briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby DENIES the motion for the reasons explained herein.

         I. BACKGROUND

         The Court has previously stated the underlying facts of this case and will not repeat them here. (See Dkt. No. 83.) In August 2017, Plaintiff served interrogatories and requests for production on Defendant. (Dkt. No. 110 at 2.) In September, Defendant served Plaintiff with its responses and produced documents. (Dkt. Nos. 110-3, 134 at 2.) In January 2018, Plaintiff moved for an order compelling Defendant to supplement its responses and produce additional documents, which the Court denied without prejudice for not complying with the meet-and-confer requirement set forth by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1), Local Civil Rule 37(a)(1), and the Standing Order for Civil Cases Assigned to Judge Richard A. Jones. (Dkt. Nos. 41, 71, 82.)

         In May 2018, the Court dismissed five of Plaintiff's claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. (See Dkt. No. 83.) The Court dismissed Plaintiff's claim that Defendant retaliated against him in violation of the Wendell H. Form Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (“AIR 21”), 49 U.S.C. § 42121, et seq. for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff is presently litigating that claim before the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”). (Dkt. Nos. 110 at 2-4, 134 at 2.) The parties previously agreed to cross-designate their document production and written discovery in the two cases, where relevant. (Dkt. No. 134 at 2.)

         On August 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant to more fully respond to Plaintiff's requests for production, along with other relief. (Dkt. No. 91.) On August 29, the Court stayed the case following the parties' representation that they had reached a settlement in principle and struck all pending motions. (Dkt. No. 98.) After the stay expired in October 2018, the Court issued an order setting an amended trial date and pretrial deadlines; the deadline to complete discovery was set for January 6, 2019. (Dkt. No. 105 at 1.)

         To date, Defendant has produced 74, 577 separate documents and Plaintiff has taken 13 depositions across the two proceedings. (Dkt. No. 134 at 3.) Plaintiff noticed an additional seven depositions but cancelled them. (Id.) Plaintiff noticed a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition but refused the dates proposed by Defendant without offering alternative dates. (Id.) It appears that the discovery deadline passed without Plaintiff having taken a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.

         Plaintiff moves for an order allowing “all cloned discovery [in the DOL litigation] for use in this case, ” for various forms of discovery relief, and for discovery-related sanctions against Defendant. (Dkt. No. 110 at 10-12.)

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Discovery Requests

         Once the district court has issued a scheduling order, the “schedule may be modified only for good cause and with the judge's consent.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b); see W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 16(b). The Court's most recent scheduling order set the deadline to complete discovery for January 6, 2019 and required that all discovery motions be noted no later than the Friday before the close of discovery. (Dkt. No. 105 at 1.) Plaintiff filed the present motion on February 14, 2019. (See Dkt. No. 110.) Plaintiff has not moved to modify the Court's scheduling order, and thus his discovery requests are untimely.[1] Plaintiff's pro se status does not excuse him from complying with rules of procedure set forth by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or this Court's Local Civil Rules. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987)). Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's discovery-related requests for relief in the present motion.

         B. Sanctions

         Plaintiff moves for discovery-related sanctions against Defendant on a variety of grounds. (See Dkt. No. 110 at 11-12.) Each is examined in turn.

         1. Failu ...


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.