United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
ERIC KLOPMAN-BAERSELMAN, as Personal Representative for the Estate of RUDIE KLOPMAN-BAERSELMAN, deceased, Plaintiff,
AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DEEM REQUEST
FOR ADMISSION NO. 15 PROPOUNDED AGAINST DEFENDANT TOYOTA
MOTOR SALES, U.S.A., INC. ADMITTED
J. BRYAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to
Deem Request for Admission No. 15 Propounded Against
Defendant Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.
(“TMS”) Admitted. Dkt. 403. The Court has
considered the motion, all materials filed in support of and
in opposition to the motion, and the remainder of the record
herein, and it is fully advised. Oral argument is unnecessary
to decide this motion.
reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's motion should be
the latest discovery dispute between Plaintiff and TMS.
Plaintiff propounded to TMS Request for Admission
(“RFA”) No. 15, requesting that TMS authenticate
as genuine 35 documents. Dkt. 404-1, at 4-5. All of the
documents, except one, appear to be repair manuals and
owner's manuals for various Toyota vehicles; the other
document is titled “1986 EPA Guidance for Preventing
Asbestos Disease Among Auto Mechanics.” Dkt. 404-1, at
objected at length to RFA No. 15 as, in part:
[O]verly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, and as asking
for information that is not relevant to the subject matter of
this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. In addition, this request
is not limited in time or scope to any product at issue
…. In addition, TMS objects to this request to the
extent it asks TMS to authenticate third-party documents that
TMS did not produce and that are unrelated to TMS. TMS
objects to the request as phrased because it asks TMS to
authenticate documents that range from 50 to 25 years old,
which TMS did not produce, are not readily available, and
would require a page by page comparison.
Dkt. 404-3, at 12-13.
filed the instant motion, which provides five examples of why
“the manuals are some of the most relevant evidence in
the entire case” and argues that the Court should order
RFA No. 15 admitted because “Toyota's objection
that authenticating its manuals ‘would require a page
by page comparison' is without merit.” Dkt. 403, at
4. Plaintiff certifies that the parties met and conferred on
two different occasions but were unable to resolve this
dispute. Dkt. 403, at 2.
responded in opposition to the Motion. Dkt. 441. TMS argues,
in part, that Plaintiff mischaracterizes the documents at
issue and the burden of authenticating over 11, 114 pages of
material. Dkt. 441. TMS specifically argues that one of the
documents in RFA 15 is an EPA gold book document not authored
by TMS, only a few of the manuals and guides at issue were
actually found in Decedent's garage, and many of the
other manuals and guides originate from other litigation
involving Toyota Defendants. Dkt. 441, at 3-4. TMS further
argues that the parties did not meaningfully meet and confer
to resolve this issue without court assistance. Dkt. 441, at
replied in support of the Motion and withdrew the EPA gold
book from its RFA No. 15. Dkt. 462, at 2.
STANDARD ON ...