Universal Life Church Monastery Storehouse v King et al, No. 2:2019cv00301 - Document 127 (W.D. Wash. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER granting in part American Marriage Ministries' 62 Motion to Compel and Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(MW)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
should not be required to produce “the entirety of all its operations, activities, accounting entries, and financial records” because the damages in this case are small, the “large swaths of all-encompassing information” have limited relevance to the claims and 4 5 defenses asserted in this litigation, further production will require 120 hours, and production is 6 therefore not proportional to the needs of this case. Dkt. # 69 at 10. As discussed above, 7 however, AMM is not seeking all of ULC’s financial records, but rather evidence sufficient to 8 provide a complete picture of ULC’s sales and profits over time which, when combined with the 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 website analytics and the information regarding ULC’s marketing efforts, will enable AMM to analyze the financials and determine whether ULC experienced an increase or decrease in revenues that was attributable to the conduct of which the parties complain. These are core issues in the litigation, and the requests are proportional to the needs of the case. ULC’s objection based on the rivalry between the parties is overruled. AMM has shown both relevance and proportionality, and any concerns ULC has regarding the use to which AMM may put information disclosed in discovery was presumably addressed in the Protective Order negotiated between the parties. See Dkt. # 26. Finally, AMM requests a 30-day extension of the discovery deadline in order to follow-up 20 on any supplemental production ordered by the Court. Although the precise relief requested is 21 unhelpful (a 30-day extension of the May 17th discovery deadline would have already expired), 22 AMM would have had sufficient time to pursue likely avenues of discovery had ULC provided 23 24 25 26 27 28 timely and substantive responses to the second set of Requests for Production. Given the time that has elapsed since the motion to compel was filed, an amended case management order will be issued. The discovery extension is for the limited purpose of following up on the discovery ORDER GRANTING IN PART AMERICAN MARRIAGE MINISTRIES’ MOTION TO COMPEL - 5 Case 2:19-cv-00301-RSL Document 127 Filed 07/13/20 Page 6 of 6 1 requests at issue in this motion: no discovery or discovery motions related to other requests is 2 permitted. 3 4 5 For all of the foregoing reasons, AMM’s motion to compel (Dkt. # 62) is GRANTED in 6 part. ULC shall, within twenty-one days of the date of this Order, provide supplemental 7 responses to Requests for Production Nos. 46-54, 56-61, 71-79. Although it need not produce 8 every document that is responsive to each and every request for production, it must produce 9 10 11 12 (a) the underlying Google Analytics (or comparable) data for its websites in read-only form and (b) a universe of financial documents sufficient to provide AMM with a complete picture of ULC’s sales and profits over time which, when combined with the website analytics and the 13 information regarding ULC’s marketing efforts, will enable AMM to analyze the financials and 14 determine whether ULC experienced a change in revenues that was attributable to the conduct at 15 issue in this litigation. Documents that are wholly duplicative and are not necessary for AMM to 16 17 18 19 20 21 be able to calculate the sales/profits associated with webpage activity and the potential drivers of those sales/profits need not be produced. For example, if ULC’s QuickBook entries (RFP No. 51) contain the same information as its detailed sales reports (RFP No. 56), ULC need not produce both. ULC’s request for an award of fees and costs (Dkt. # 69 at 11) is DENIED. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated this 13th day of July, 2020. A Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge ORDER GRANTING IN PART AMERICAN MARRIAGE MINISTRIES’ MOTION TO COMPEL - 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
