Townsley v. Geico Indemnity Company

Filing 55

ORDER denying dft's 39 Motion to Compel and for continuance by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

ESTRALITTA TOWNSLEY,

10
11
12

Plaintiff,
Case No. C12-1909RSL
v.
GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY,

13

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL AND MOTION FOR
CONTINUANCE

Defendant.

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

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant GEICO Indemnity Company’s
(“GEICO”) “Second Motion to Compel Re: Security Administration Records Release; Request
for Trial Continuance; and/or Other Appropriate Relief Under FRCP 37” (Dkt. # 39). Having
considered the parties’ memoranda, supporting documents, and the remainder of the record, the
Court finds as follows:
(1) This case arises out of a car accident involving Plaintiff. Dkt. # 30 ¶¶ 4.1-4.5. At the
time of the accident, Plaintiff’s insurance policy with GEICO contained underinsured motorist
(“UIM”) coverage. Id. ¶ 1.1. Plaintiff now seeks to recover her UIM policy limits of $50,000.
Id. ¶ 6.1.
(2) In July 2013, the Court granted Defendant’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff’s
Social Security Administration (“SSA”) records. Dkt. # 27. The Order instructed Plaintiff to

27
28

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL
AND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE - 1

1

provide Defendant with a signed authorization for the release of her SSA records. Id. at 2.

2

Plaintiff complied with the Court’s Order and gave Defendant a signed SSA records release form

3

in July 2013. Dkt. # 40-1 at 16.

4

(3) On September 14, 2013, more than one month after the discovery deadline passed,

5

dkt. # 22, Defendant received Plaintiff’s records from SSA, id. ¶ 5. Additionally, Defendant

6

received notice from the Public Disclosure Division of the Washington Department of Social

7

and Health Services (“DSHS”) indicating that DSHS would not release Plaintiff’s DSHS records

8

without a signed authorization for the release of those records. Id.; Dkt. # 40-1 at 33 (“Client

9

submitted a SSA auth hoping to obtain DSHS records.”). Based on its belief that it had not

10

received a complete set of Plaintiff’s SSA records and DSHS may have additional relevant

11

documents, Defendant asked Plaintiff to sign a new authorization for the release of her DSHS

12

records. Dkt. # 40-1 at 12. Plaintiff declined to sign the DSHS records release. Dkt. # 45-2.

13

(4) Despite Defendant’s argument to the contrary, the Court finds that Plaintiff complied

14

with the Court’s July 5, 2013 Order when she provided Defendant with a signed SSA records

15

release form authorizing the release of her SSA records. Dkt. # 40-1. In its motion, Defendant

16

refers to this situation as a “DSHS/SSA ‘snafu.’” Dkt. # 39 at 10. Defendant, however, fails to

17

recognize that DSHS and SSA are separate agencies. By moving to compel Plaintiff to authorize

18

DSHS to release her DSHS records, Defendant now seeks to compel the release of records

19

entirely separate from those it earlier sought to obtain from SSA.

20

(5) Additionally, there is no indication in the record that Defendant ever requested or

21

attempted to obtain Plaintiff’s DSHS records before the close of discovery. The first time

22

Defendant raised this issue was more than one month after the discovery cut-off. Dkt. # 40-1 at

23

12. Defendant filed its motion to compel more than two months after the deadline for filing

24

motions related to discovery. Dkt. # 22. Defendant’s second motion to compel is therefore

25

DENIED.

26

(6) Turning to Defendant’s request to continue the trial date, Defendant requests a sixty-

27
28

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL
AND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE - 2

1

day continuance of the trial date to allow sufficient time to obtain Plaintiff’s DSHS records and

2

prepare for trial. Dkt. # 39 at 1-2, 10. Because the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to

3

compel, the Court finds that Defendant has not established good cause to warrant a continuance

4

and DENIES the motion to continue the trial date. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4).

5
6
7

For all of the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s second motion to compel and request for
trial continuance (Dkt. # 39) is DENIED.

8
9

Dated this 7th day of November, 2013.

10
11

A

12

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL
AND MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE - 3