United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND
DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Arthur
Roness's Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a) Motion to Compel information
related to Defendant T-Mobile USA, Inc.
(“T-Mobile”)'s third-party contract vendors
that provided T-Mobile with “rack and stack”
support at the Snoqualmie Data Center. Dkt. #34. T-Mobile
opposes Plaintiff's Motion and requests entry of a
protective order. Dkt. #46. A full summary of the case is not
necessary given this Court's earlier orders on
parties' dispositive motions. See Dkts. #54,
reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is
DENIED and T-Mobile's Motion for Entry of a Protective
Order is DENIED as moot.
Requests for Productions Nos. 10 and 11 request the following
information related to T-Mobile's third-party contractors
at the Snoqualmie Data Center:
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION NO. 10:
Please produce all communication documents, including emails,
notes, correspondence, etc. that any of your employees,
including but not limited to Robert Okrie, Robert Gray, Jason
Evans had with your contract vendors, including but not
limited to Blue Stream Professional Services, Tek Systems,
General Data Telecom (GDT), JLL, Facility Tech related to
“purchasing hours” or utilizing the contract
vendors services for purposes of Rack and Stack support at
the Snoqualmie Data Center between 2015 and 2019 .
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION NO. 11: For
all contract vendors that provided you with Rack and Stack
support at your Snoqualmie Data Center between 2015 and 2019,
please produce all documents, including but not limited to
invoices, purchase orders, contract agreements, order
requests, payment sheets/logs, time usage logs, etc., which
would show how you much you utilized the vendors'
services, how much the vendor charged you for its services,
how much you paid the vendors for their services, the time
periods you utilized the vendors' services, how many
hours you purchased from the vendors, the services to be
performed by the vendors' workers, etc.
#35-2 at 2-4. T-Mobile objected to both requests on the basis
of relevance and proportionality. Id.
Standard of Review
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.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Information within
this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to
be discoverable. Id. “District courts have
broad discretion in determining relevancy for discovery
purposes.” Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor
Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing
Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir.
2002)). 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 that resists
discovery has the burden to show why the discovery request
should be denied. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519
F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975).
Production of Third-Party Contractor Information
argues that the requested materials are relevant to proving
two elements of his claim that T-Mobile failed to reasonably
accommodate his disability: (1) Plaintiff would have been
able to perform the essential functions of the job in
question with reasonable accommodation; and (2) T-Mobile
failed to reasonably accommodate Plaintiff's impairment.
Dkt. #34 at 3 (citing RCW 49.60.040(7); WPI 330.33).
extent that Plaintiff's Motion seeks to compel
information showing that on-call rotation is not an
“essential function” of his Senior Technician job
at Snoqualmie, this issue is moot in light of the Court's
order dated July 9, 2019. See Dkt #55 (Finding that,
as a matter of law, on-call availability was an
“essential function” of Plaintiff's Senior
Technician position at Snoqualmie). Accordingly, the Court