United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S SECOND MOTION TO
COMPEL AND GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Fed.R.Civ.P.
37(a) Second Motion to Compel information related to
complaints and prior incidents regarding Ms. Cindy Pancerman.
Dkt. #35. Plaintiff Abdikarim Karrani moves to compel
Defendant JetBlue Airways Corporation (“JetBlue”)
to produce unredacted copies of passenger complaints against
Ms. Pancerman. Plaintiff filed this motion on May 9, 2019-ten
days after the close of discovery-and requests relief from
the deadline to file discovery motions on March 29, 2019. On
May 29, 2019, JetBlue filed a surreply pursuant to Local Rule
7(g) requesting that the Court strike Section E of
Plaintiff's Reply in support of the Second Motion to
Compel. Dkt. #58. A full summary of the case is not necessary
given this Court's earlier orders on parties'
discovery disputes. See Dkts. #49, 50.
reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is
GRANTED, and Defendant JetBlue's Motion to Strike is
first set of discovery requests were served on February 6,
2019. Dkt. #20 at 2.
No. 7 asked JetBlue to “identify every complaint
against Cindy Pancerman in the last ten years” and to
provide facts related to each complaint. Dkt. #20-1 at 32.
Request for Production No. 13 asks for all documents related
to Interrogatory No. 7. Plaintiff's discovery requests
define “complaint” as:
[M]eans for a passenger to communicate to [JetBlue] or to a
third party a concern about a JetBlue employee or about an
incident involving a JetBlue employee, which may
include actions or inactions by JetBlue which imply unfair,
discriminatory, retaliatory, or harassing treatment by you
against a passenger. This includes both oral and written
communications received by you, directly or indirectly (i.e.,
a communication from a government agency notifying you of a
Dkt. #20-1 at 23-24. JetBlue objected to the scope of the
requests but agreed to search for and produce any documented
customer complaints involving Cindy Pancerman in the three
years prior to Flight 263, noting that customer complaints
are deleted after three years pursuant to JetBlue's
document retention policy. Dkt. #20-1 at 49. JetBlue produced
its supplemental response on April 12, 2019, which included a
racial discrimination complaint from February 2016 and a
complaint about mistreatment, without allegations of
discriminatory motive. Dkt. #35 at 7. JetBlue ultimately
produced a more complete version of the February 2016 racial
discrimination complaint that identified the complainant,
Fatima Wachuku, and Plaintiff deposed the complainant before
the close of discovery. Id.
April 29, 2019, JetBlue provided its second supplemental
responses. Dkt. #35 at 7. This second supplemental response
included Ms. Pancerman's personnel file, which contained
additional incident reports and customer communications
related to complaints against Ms. Pancerman. Dkt. #37,
Jorgensen Decl., ¶ 8. JetBlue redacted the names of
non-party individuals contained in these documents.
Id. ¶ 13. Plaintiff objected to these
redactions and, on May 9, 2019, filed a second Motion to
Compel JetBlue to produce:
[U]nredacted copies of all versions of other passengers'
complaints against Ms. Pancerman that exist and all related
documentation, without any redactions made to the names and
contact information of the complainants or otherwise.
Dkt. #35 at 13.
Plaintiff's Requested ...