United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Defendant's motion to
enforce the Court's February 26, 2019 order (Dkt. No.
45). Having thoroughly considered the parties' briefing
and the relevant record, the Court hereby GRANTS in part and
DENIES in part the motion for the reasons explained herein.
Court has previously set forth the facts of this case and
will not repeat them here. (Dkt. Nos. 11, 18, 25, 43.) After
the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in
part Defendant's motion to compel discovery (Dkt. No.
43), Defendant brings the present motion arguing that
Plaintiff has failed to comply with portions of that order.
(Dkt. No. 45.)
Interrogatories 6 and 7
6 and 7 ask Plaintiff to identify her alleged damages and the
factual support for those damages. (Dkt. No. 46-1 at 13-15.)
In response, it appears that Plaintiff has produced a list of
medical costs and the offices in which she incurred those
costs, but not what services the costs paid for. (Dkt. No. 48
at 12-14.) The services that the alleged costs paid for is
relevant to Defendant's defense because Defendant must
know whether Plaintiff's claimed medical costs covered
services that were conceivably caused by the accident.
Therefore, Defendant must be made aware of the services and
prescriptions that those costs covered. However, the Court is
aware that Defendant has deposed, and still will depose, many
of Plaintiff's previous and current medical care
providers. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 45, 47, 49.) If
the information sought is available through deposition of
Plaintiff's medical providers, deposition testimony will
suffice to fill that gap in knowledge. As long as Defendant
has some way of understanding what Plaintiff's claimed
medical costs covered, that is sufficient to comply with the
Court's prior order. Therefore, the Court GRANTS
Defendant's motion as to Interrogatories 6 and 7,
inasmuch as, if deposition testimony does not fill that gap
in knowledge, Plaintiff is ORDERED to do so by supplementing
15 asks Plaintiff to provide an itemized list of the medical
expenses that she contends were proximately caused by the
accident and how they were paid. (Dkt. No. 46-1 at 17.)
Defendant argues that Plaintiff still has not complied
because she has not identified which medical expenses were
paid for with her $50, 000 recovery from the at-fault driver.
(Dkt. No. 45 at 7.) If the list Plaintiff provided is the
extent of her medical damages, Defendant can calculate
whether those damages exceed the payout Plaintiff received.
Therefore, Defendant's motion as to Interrogatory 15 is
18 asks Plaintiff to identify and describe all communications
between Plaintiff and any third party about the accident,
this lawsuit, or any alleged injuries caused by the accident.
Defendant argues that Plaintiff has flatly ignored the
Court's order because she has not produced anything
further and she has not indicated what search terms she used.
The Court did not order Plaintiff to tell Defendant what
search terms she used, but ordered her to use them in
supplementing her response. Plaintiff certifies that she has
produced everything responsive to this interrogatory.
Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion as to
20 asks Plaintiff about her pre-accident chiropractic care.
(Dkt. No. 50-1 at 3.) For the first time in its reply brief,
Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not fully responded to
this interrogatory because: (1) her chiropractor's memory
is vague and imprecise; her chiropractor's recordkeeping
is questionable; and (3) Plaintiff has not otherwise filled
this gap in knowledge. (Dkt. No. 49 at 6-7.) Defendant has
made no showing that her chiropractor's memory and