United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT SEATTLE CITY
LIGHT'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND EXTEND
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Defendant Seattle City
Light's Motion to Compel Discovery and Extend Deadlines.
Dkt. #36. Defendant Seattle City Light (“City
Light”) served discovery requests more than a year ago,
the requests have gone unanswered, and City Light now seeks
responses to the requests and an extension of certain
deadlines in this case. Id. Plaintiff has not
responded. For the following reasons, the Court grants City
Light's Motion, in part.
the pendency of this matter, Plaintiff has proceeded both
with counsel and pro se. On May 16, 2018, while Plaintiff was
proceeding pro se, City Light served him with its First
Interrogatories & Requests for Production. Dkt. #37 at
¶ 3. Plaintiff requested and was granted several
extensions while he sought to retain counsel. Id. at
¶ 4. After retaining counsel in September 2018, City
Light continued to grant extensions to pursue settlement
negotiations. Id. at 5-6. When settlement talks
stalled, City Light sought responses to the outstanding
discovery and attempted to schedule Plaintiff's
deposition. Id. at ¶¶ 8-9. Shortly
thereafter, Plaintiff's counsel sought to withdraw and
ultimately did so on April 18, 2019. Dkt. #35. City Light
thereafter attempted to communicate with Plaintiff about the
outstanding discovery requests and scheduling his deposition.
Dkt. #37 at ¶¶ 23-26.
primary importance, the parties did confer by telephone prior
to City Light filing this Motion on April 29, 2019.
Id. at ¶ 26. Plaintiff indicated that he
believed that documents included with a prior settlement
responsive and that he was not willing to provide further
responses, to either interrogatories or requests for
production, or schedule his deposition until after he
retained new legal counsel. Id. Plaintiff was not
able to provide a date upon which he would retain new legal
counsel or by which he could provide responses and schedule
his deposition. Id. Accordingly, City Light brought
this Motion. Plaintiff has not responded.
Motion to Compel
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26:
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 be discoverable.
Civ. P. 26(b)(1). If requested discovery is not answered, the
requesting party may move for an order compelling such
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 Sanders, Inc.,
175 F.R.D. 646, 650 (C.D. Cal. 1997).
has not responded to this Motion. Pursuant to Local Civil
Rule 7, “if a party fails to file papers in opposition
to a motion, such failure may be considered by the court as
an admission that the motion has merit.” LCR 7(b)(2).
The Court accordingly does so. Further, City Light's
discovery requests have been outstanding for over a year and
Plaintiff has provided no indication when he will respond to
them or when he will consent to his deposition. It is
Plaintiff's duty to provide requested discovery, unless,
if he feels a request is not appropriate, he timely objects
and/or seeks relief from the Court. Plaintiff has not sought
relief from the Court, has not provided any basis for the