Rahman v. American Tire Distributor Inc et al

Filing 73

ORDER regarding plaintiff's 60 Motion to Compel by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE _______________________________________ ) SHAW RAHMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) AMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTOR, INC., ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________) No. C13-0410RSL ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL 14 15 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to compel the production 16 of documents from defendant American Tire Distributor (“ATD”). Dkt. # 60. Whether there 17 remain any outstanding issues is difficult to ascertain. Having reviewed the memoranda, 18 declaration, and exhibits submitted by the parties, the Court finds as follows: 19 ! All written communications with plaintiff shall be directed to the addresses identified 20 in the docket. Unless and until Mr. Rahman provides notice to the Court of a change of address, 21 defendants shall send communications via email to mailtoshawrahman@gmail.com and via the 22 United States Postal Service to 16596 NE 84th Ct. #4A, Redmond, WA 98052. It is plaintiff’s 23 responsibility to update the docket to reflect his current addresses and to check the identified 24 mailboxes regularly for correspondence related to this matter. 25 ! It appears that ATD has produced all emails between plaintiff and Anjani Gali, as well 26 ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 as the weekly status reports sent to Anjani Gali and Aramnad Aghabegian on or before March 22, 2012. ! In their response, defendants committed to providing all emails between plaintiff, Anjani Gali, and Prashanth Koppula within the time limits established in Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. The Court assumes that production occurred on or around April 30, 2014. ! Plaintiff’s supposition that defendants are intentionally concealing documents or delaying production is unjustified on the record presented. The misdirection of discovery responses does not establish bad faith, and defense counsel has shown a willingness to try to understand what plaintiff is seeking and to look beyond formalities to ensure that discovery proceeds in an orderly fashion. ! ATD’s request for sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 is denied. The parties did confer, the communication problem was discovered, and defendants promised to resend the responsive materials. When the materials still did not appear, plaintiff filed this motion. Although it was improper to expand the scope of his discovery requests in the motion, plaintiff is proceeding pro se and will not be sanctioned for this misstep. ATD’s request for Rule 11 sanctions fails to comply with the requirements of that rule and has not been considered. 17 18 19 Dated this 19th day of May, 2014. A Robert S. Lasnik 20 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL -2-

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?