Rahman v. American Tire Distributor Inc et al
Filing
73
ORDER regarding plaintiff's 60 Motion to Compel by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(RS)
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?