Kim v. Coach, Inc, et al

Filing 15

MOTION to Compel Rule 26(f) Initial Discovery Conference by Plaintiff Gina Kim. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 4/1/2011, (Carney, Christopher)

Gina Kim vs. Coach, Inc., et al.

Doc. 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 weeks ago. Since that time, Plaintiff's counsel has repeatedly requested that Defendant Coach 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 participate in the required Rule 26(f) initial discovery conference. To this date, Defendant Coach has steadfastly refused to conduct the Rule 26(f) initial conference, or to even schedule such a conference. See Carlson Decl., Ex. A (e-mail correspondence between counsel). Coach's counsel has merely indicated that he "will alert [us] when the Coach companies' counsel has completed the necessary preparation work, so that a Rule 26 conference may be scheduled." Carlson Decl., Ex. B. Defense counsel has claimed that they have not been able to complete preparatory work necessary to allow them to schedule a Rule 26(f) initial conference. However, during this same period, defense counsel has had time to answer the complaint, file specious counterclaims against opposing counsel for defamation, research the merits of this case and write a lengthy Cause No. 2:11-CV-00214 RSM PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RULE 26(F) CONFERENCE
CARLSON LEGAL 100 W. HARRISON ST. SUITE N440 SEATTLE, WA 98119 [phone]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE GINA KIM, on behalf of a class consisting of ) Cause No. 2:11-CV-00214 RSM herself and all other persons similarly situated, ) Plaintiffs, ) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL vs. ) RULE 26(F) INITIAL DISCOVERY COACH, INC., a Maryland corporation, and ) CONFERENCE COACH SERVICES, INC., a Maryland ) corporation, ) NOTE FOR MOTION CALENDAR: Defendants. ) FRIDAY, APRIL 1, 2011 ) ) ) ) The Complaint in this matter was filed and served on February 9, 2011, more than five

-1

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

letter threatening Rule 11 sanctions, draft multiple protective order proposals, file a motion for entry of a protective order, and correspond actively with opposing counsel. See Answer and Counterclaims, Docket No. 6, Motion for Entry of Protective Order, Docket No. 10, Carlson Declaration, Docket No. 9, Ex. A; Eagan Declaration, Docket No. 12, Exs. A, H. We believe that the real reason Coach refuses to confer is because Coach knows that, pursuant to the Civil Rules, the Plaintiff cannot commence discovery until the Rule 26(f) conference takes place. Rule 26(f) requires that the parties conduct an initial discovery conference "as soon as practicable[.]" In the last five weeks, Coach has had ample opportunity to prepare itself for an initial conference. Getting discovery underway promptly is particularly important in this class action case, where the Local Rules require Plaintiff to file her motion for class certification within 180 days of filing the Complaint. LR 23(a)(3). Defendant's refusal to "get started" with discovery has, and will continue to, seriously prejudice Plaintiff's ability to diligently prosecute this case. We therefore respectfully request that the Court compel Defendant Coach to conduct a

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

rule 26(f) initial conference within seven days of entry of this Court's Order.

DATED this 16th day of March, 2011. /s/ Jay S. Carlson, WSBA No. 30411 Carlson Legal Christopher Carney, WSBA No. 30325 Carney Gillespie & Isitt PLLC Jason Moore Van Eyk & Moore, PLLC 100 W. Harrison St., Suite N440 Seattle, WA 98119

Cause No. 2:11-CV-00214 RSM PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL RULE 26(F) CONFERENCE

-2

CARLSON LEGAL 100 W. HARRISON ST. SUITE N440 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98119 [phone]