Smyth v. Merchants Credit Corporation et al
Filing
49
ORDER denying pltf's 37 Motion to Compel and granting motion to continue discovery cutoff by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
6
7
8
DONNA L. SMYTH,
Plaintiff,
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
v.
MERCHANTS CREDIT CORPORATION, a
Washington State corporation, and DAVID
and SOFIA QUIGLEY,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL AND GRANTING
MOTION TO CONTINUE
DISCOVERY CUTOFF
Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Motion to Compel Discovery
Responses and to Reset Discovery Schedule” (Dkt. # 37). Because plaintiff did not make a good
faith effort to confer with defendant regarding this discovery dispute before filing her motion,
her motion to compel is DENIED.
The meet and confer requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) and Local Civil Rule
37(a)(1)(A) are imposed for the benefit of the Court and the parties. They are intended to ensure
that parties have an inexpensive and expeditious opportunity to resolve discovery disputes and
that only genuine disagreements are brought before the Court. In the circumstances presented
here, compliance with the Rules would have involved face-to-face or telephonic communications
regarding the particular deficiencies plaintiff perceived in defendant’s discovery responses.
Four months ago, plaintiff served her first interrogatories and requests for production on
25
26
Case No. C11-1879RSL
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL AND GRANTING MOTION
TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY
1
defendants. Plaintiff received defendants’ responses in late August and early September 2012.
2
Since that time, counsel have discussed discovery twice. However, there is no evidence that the
3
parties had face-to-face or telephone discussions regarding anything other than a confidentiality
4
agreement. There is no indication that plaintiff identified particular discovery requests or
5
deficiencies during those conversations or made any other attempts to meet and confer with
6
defendants. The absence of such evidence suggests that plaintiff has not satisfied her obligation
7
under Rule 37(a)(1) or Local Rule 37(a)(1)(A).
8
Defendants’ response to plaintiff’s motion to compel, combined with plaintiff’s reply,
9
support this finding. Defendants request, and plaintiff agrees that “[a] continuance [of the
10
motion to compel] would also allow Plaintiff to review the additional documents produced
11
today, and give the parties time to narrow the issues still pending before the Court.” Response
12
(Dkt. # 45) at 2; Reply (Dkt. #47) at 1.
13
A good faith effort to resolve this matter would have involved an exchange of information
14
until no additional progress was possible. This did not happen. As is clear from the memoranda,
15
the positions of the parties were unknown when plaintiff filed her motion, a sure sign that the
16
requirements of Rule 37(a) have not been satisfied. Furthermore, Defendant Merchants has
17
continued to produce documents since the filing of this motion. Response at 2-3. Because the
18
parties agree that they are continuing to discuss discovery concerns and they will work together
19
“to narrow the issues still pending before the Court,” the Court finds that the parties have not
20
reached impasse and therefore, this motion to compel is premature. As the memoranda and
21
declarations suggest, additional discussion and negotiation may enable the parties to resolve this
22
dispute without Court intervention.
23
In plaintiff’s motion, she requests a three month extension of the discovery cutoff .
24
Motion at 2. In response, defendant also seeks to extend the discovery cutoff. Response at 2.
25
The Court GRANTS the request for an extension of the discovery cutoff and extends the
26
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL AND GRANTING MOTION
TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY
-2-
1
discovery deadline until February 3, 2013. Based on this extension, the Court continues the trial
2
date until June 3, 2013.
3
4
For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to compel (Dkt. # 37) is
5
DENIED for failure to comply with Rule 37(a). Plaintiff’s request to continue the discovery
6
cutoff is GRANTED.
7
8
Dated this 16th day of November, 2012.
9
10
A
11
Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL AND GRANTING MOTION
TO CONTINUE DISCOVERY
-3-
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
