Ilyia v. El Khoury et al

Filing 175

ORDER Denying Pltf's 151 Motion to Compel by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(TF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

_______________________________________
)
ELIAS ILYIA,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
MAROUN N. EL KHOURY, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________)

No. C11-1593RSL
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL

13

This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiff Elias Ilyia’s Motion to Compel”
14

responses to discovery served on November 5, 2012, and January 28, 2013. Dkt. # 151. The
15

motion is DENIED as untimely and for failure to comply with LCR 37(a)(1). Pursuant to the
16

case management order issued by the Court (Dkt. # 68), all motions related to discovery had to
17

be filed by December 20, 2012. Defendant’s initial responses to plaintiff’s first set of Requests
18

for Production were served on December 3, 2012: to the extent the responses were insufficient,
19

plaintiff could have and should have met and conferred with counsel and, if necessary, filed a
20

timely motion to compel. Instead, plaintiff waited until the end of January to contact defendant
21

regarding perceived shortcomings in the production and waited until March 7, 2013, to file this
22

motion to compel.
23

The discovery requests issued on January 28, 2013, were untimely and cannot be
24

justified by the fact that defendant had amended his counterclaims two weeks earlier. Defendant
25

filed his motion to amend on December 13, 2012. Plaintiff neither opposed the motion to amend
26
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL

1
2
3
4
5

nor requested that the Court extend the discovery or other case management deadlines if
amendment were permitted. Plaintiff’s apparent assumption that the amendment would
automatically reopen discovery was not reasonable in light of the clear admonition that the case
management deadlines “are firm dates that can be changed only by order of the Court, not by
agreement of counsel or the parties.” Dkt. # 68 at 2.
Finally, plaintiff did not provide the required certification showing that he made a

6
7
8

good faith effort to confer with defendant regarding this dispute prior to filing its motion. An
exchange of letters demanding and refusing supplementation is insufficient under LCR 37(a)(1).

9

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to compel (Dkt. # 151) is

10
11
12

DENIED.
Dated this 7th day of June, 2013.

13

A

14

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL

-2-