Townsley v. Geico Indemnity Company

Filing 55

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

Download PDF
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

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?