Olson v. University of Washington

Filing 137

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. Plaintiff's Motions 79 and 86 for Relief from Deadlines are Granted in Part and Denied in Part; Plaintiff's 98 Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint is Denied; Plaint iff's 103 Motion to Compel is Granted in Part and Denied in Part; Defendants' 109 Motion for Protective Order is Stricken as Untimely; Plaintiff's 113 Motion for Relief Denied as Moot; Plaintiff's 114 Motion for Protec tive Order is Denied as Premature; Plaintiff's 134 Motion for Extension of Time is Stricken as Moot. Defendants' 92 MOTION to Compel has been renoted by clerk to 9/19/2014. The Clerk reset Parties' Discovery deadline to 10/15/2014 and parties' Dispositive motions deadline to 10/31/2014. The Court addresses each the motions, and also warns the parties that additional voluminous motion filings may result in monetary sanctions.(LMK)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

Case No. C13-0782RSM

W. GARY OLSON,
9

Plaintiff,

ORDER ON PENDING MOTIONS

10

v.
11

EDWINA S. UEHARA, et al.,
12

Defendants.
13

I.

14

INTRODUCTION

15

This matter comes before the Court on a number of pending motions, including:

16

Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. #79); Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from

17

Deadline (Dkt. #86); Defendants’ Motion to Compel (Dkt. #92); Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to
18
19

File Amended Complaint (Dkt. #98); Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. #103); Defendants’

20

Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. #109); Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief (Dkt. #113); and

21

Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. #114). The Court addresses each of these motions

22

below, and also warns the parties that additional voluminous motion filings may result in

23

monetary sanctions.
24

II.

25

BACKGROUND

26

The relevant background to this matter is set forth in the Court’s prior Order granting

27

Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Denying Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion for

28

Partial Summary Judgment, and is incorporated by reference herein. See Dkt. #133.
ORDER
PAGE - 1

III.

1
2

DISCUSSION

A. Defendants’ Motion to Compel Production of Email (Dkt. #92) and Plaintiff’s
Related Motions for Relief and for a Protective Order (Dkts. #113 and #114)

3
4

Defendants have moved this Court for an Order compelling Plaintiff to produce 19

5

emails between Plaintiff and his former colleague and friend, Dr. Miceal Vaughan. Plaintiff

6

asserts the email is protected by the attorney work product privilege. The Court DEFERS

7

Defendants’ motion for the reasons set forth herein.

8

1. Applicable Standard
9
10

“Litigants ‘may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to

11

the claim or defense of any party.’” Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625,

12

635 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)). “Relevant information for purposes of

13

discovery is information ‘reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

14

evidence.’” Id. “District courts have broad discretion in determining relevancy for discovery
15
16

purposes.” Id. (citing Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002)). If requested

17

discovery is not answered, the requesting party may move for an order compelling such

18

discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). “The party who resists discovery has the burden to show

19

that discovery should not be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and
20
21
22
23
24

supporting its objections.” Cable & Computer Tech., Inc. v. Lockheed Sanders, Inc., 175
F.R.D. 646, 650 (C.D. Cal. 1997).
2. Attorney Work Product Privilege
The attorney work-product privilege “shields both opinion and factual work product

25

from discovery.” Pac. Fisheries, Inc. v. United States, 539 F.3d 1143, 1148 (9th Cir. 2008)
26
27

(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3) (“Ordinarily, a party may not discover documents and tangible

28

things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its
ORDER
PAGE - 2

1

representative[.]”). In this case, Plaintiff insists that the email correspondence at issue contains

2

the mental theories and impressions of his attorney, and was created for the purpose of

3

litigation. The Court is unable to adequately review the email correspondence in the form the

4

documents were submitted. Accordingly, the Court directs Plaintiff to submit the emails at

5

issue for an in camera review, after which the Court will rule on Defendants’ motion.
6
7

3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. #114)

8

Plaintiff moves for a protective Order precluding Defendants from issuing a subpoena

9

to Mr. Vaughan in an attempt to secure his privileged email correspondence with Plaintiff.

10

Dkts. #114. Plaintiff also asked the Court to consider the motion in an expedited manner,

11

which is now MOOT. Dkt. #113. To the extent the Plaintiff seeks to preclude the Defendants
12
13

from securing what he believes are privileged documents from Mr. Vaughan himself or other

14

third parties, the Court denies the motion as premature.1 Not only has Plaintiff failed to provide

15

any subpoena or document that actually seeks the emails from Mr. Vaughan directly or from

16

any other third party, the parties have since stipulated to conduct the proposed deposition of
17
18

Mr. Vaughan after the Court issues rulings on the pending motions.

The Court expects

19

Defendants to abide by any ruling the Court makes with respect to the Vaughan emails once the

20

Court has reviewed the documents at issue and ruled accordingly.

21

B. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (Dkt. #98)

22

Plaintiff seeks leave to file an Amended Complaint to add the Washington State
23
24

Auditor’s Office (“SAO”), as well as “the head of the SAO in his official capacity,” as

25

Defendants to the instant action on a defamation claim. Dkt. #98. The deadline for any joinder

26

of parties in this matter was September 12, 2013. Dkt. #20. Plaintiff alleges that he has only

27
1

28

The Court also notes that the motion was untimely filed after the discovery motion deadline
in this matter, which was August 15, 2014, and would strike the motion for that reason as well.
ORDER
PAGE - 3

1

just discovered evidence against the SAO upon which he now desires to base a claim for

2

defamation. He asserts that the SAO is both a necessary and permissive party to this action and

3

there is good cause to add the party and the claim at this juncture. Dkt. #98. The Court is not

4

persuaded. While Plaintiff fills his motion with conclusory statements that the SAO has

5

defamed him and is now necessary to be joined to this action, Plaintiff fails to include any
6
7

specific documents or statements upon which the Court could analyze such a claim. Moreover,

8

there are no facts alleged in the proposed Third Amended Complaint upon which to evaluate

9

the potential for a state law claim of defamation against the SAO – i.e., Plaintiff fails to identify

10

the actual alleged defamatory statements, when and to whom they were allegedly published,

11

and how he was allegedly damaged by the statements. As a result, the Court is unable to
12
13

conduct any analysis under which to determine whether the SAO should be joined as a party,

14

and finds that Plaintiff fails to show good cause why such party should be added at this late

15

juncture in the case. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

16

C. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production (Dkt. #103)
17
18

Plaintiff seeks an Order compelling Defendants to produce documents in response to a

19

number of pending Requests for Production. For the reasons set for the herein, the motion is

20

GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

21

1. Request for Production No. 18

22

The Court DENIES any further response to Plaintiff’s RFP No. 18. Plaintiff asserts that
23
24

he needs specific information covering 13 different areas for more than 2500 students since

25

1997 in order to prove his defamation claim. Dkt. #103 at 3-6. Specifically, he states he needs

26

the information to illustrate the effect of discrimination amongst minorities and disabled

27

students in the School of Social Work graduate programs. Id. Defendants have already

28

ORDER
PAGE - 4

1

produced race, ethnicity, and disability status information, along with international student

2

status information, on incoming MSW classes from 1999-2013, and for the SW 599 students by

3

individual random identifier numbers. Dkt. #119 at ¶ 11. These categories of information

4

permit Plaintiff to compare the racial/ethnic and disability information that is available on SW

5

599 students with incoming MSW classes as a whole. Id. The Court is not persuaded that
6
7
8
9

Plaintiff requires the burdensome amount of documents he seeks through his Request.
Accordingly, his motion to compel a further response is denied.
2. Requests for Production Nos. 8, 10, 30 and 58

10

a. RFP No. 8 – Communication regarding the Audit

11

In RFP No. 8, Plaintiff sought all communications regarding the Audit and resulting
12
13

Audit Report. Dkt. #103 at 6-7. Defendants respond that they have fully responded to the

14

Request. Dkts. #116 at 5-6 and #119 at ¶ ¶ 17-18. Accordingly, the Court directs Defendants

15

to supplement their response to indicate as much, and no further response will be compelled.

16

b. RFP Nos. 10 and 30 – Communications Regarding SocW 599B Credits
17
18

In RFP Nos. 10 and 30, Plaintiff seeks sweeping documentation of communications

19

regarding SocW 599B credits. Dkt. #103 at 7. Defendants respond that such requests are

20

overbroad and unduly burdensome, and have produced declarations evidencing the tens of

21

thousands of dollars it would take to comply with such requests. Dkts. #116 and #117. The

22

dispute regarding these requests appears to center on the scope of the requests and the
23
24

relevancy of potential responses. The Court finds the subject matter of the requests and likely

25

responses to be relevant to Plaintiff’s claim that the University both knew of his practice of

26

awarding 599B credits and condoned his actions. The Court further finds that the request is

27

sufficiently narrow in time, given that the two RFPs seek documents only since March 1, 2011.

28

ORDER
PAGE - 5

1

However, the Court is not convinced that the parties have adequately conferred regarding the

2

scope of the requests as it pertains to search terms and potential sources.

3

Plaintiff’s motion to compel additional responses to RFP Nos. 10 and 30 is GRANTED IN

4

Accordingly,

PART AND DENIED IN PART.

5

Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to propose a list of search terms along with the sources he
6
7

believes should be searched to defense counsel no later than ten days from the date of this

8

Order. The parties shall then engage in a good faith meet and confer regarding that proposal.

9

Should the parties remain unable to come to an agreement regarding the scope of the requests,

10

they may resubmit an Expedited Joint Motion pursuant to Local Rule CR 37(a)(2) regarding

11

these requests, no later than October 3, 2014. Plaintiff’s counsel is warned that should he
12
13

continue to insist upon a broad scope of discovery that the Court will consider shifting the cost

14

of responding to such requests to Plaintiff.

15

c. RFP No. 58 – Communication regarding student referrals to Dr. Olson

16

In RFP No. 58, Plaintiff essentially seeks documentation occurring between 2003 and
17
18

2011 of any communications reflecting student referrals to Dr. Olson, or in which Dr. Olson

19

was referenced with respect to a student’s inability to take enough credits to obtain financial

20

aid. Dkt. #103 at 7. As with the previous RFP Nos. 10 and 30, the dispute regarding RFP No.

21

58 appears to center on the scope of the request and the relevancy of potential responses. The

22

Court finds the subject matter of the request and likely responses to be relevant to Plaintiff’s
23
24

claim that the University both knew of his practice of awarding 599B credits and condoned his

25

actions. However, the Court is not convinced that the request is sufficiently narrow in time,

26

given that the RFP seeks documents over an eight year period. Further, the Court is not

27

convinced that the parties have adequately conferred regarding the scope of the requests as it

28

ORDER
PAGE - 6

1
2
3
4

pertains to search terms and potential sources. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel and
additional response to RFP No. 58 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to propose a list of search terms along with the sources he
believes should be searched to defense counsel no later than ten days from the date of this

5

Order. The parties shall then engage in a good faith meet and confer regarding that proposal.
6
7

The parties should also discuss an appropriate date range. Should the parties remain unable to

8

come to an agreement regarding the scope of the requests, they may resubmit an Expedited

9

Joint Motion pursuant to Local Rule CR 37(a)(2) regarding this request, no later than October

10

3, 2014. Plaintiff’s counsel is warned that should he continue to insist upon a broad scope of

11

discovery that the Court will consider shifting the cost of responding to such requests to
12
13

Plaintiff.

14

3. Cordova Emails

15

The parties are directed to engage in a good faith discovery conference pertaining to

16

Plaintiff’s request for email correspondence between Mr. Cordova and Mr. Jackson. Any
17
18
19

remaining dispute may be raised through the expedited joint motion process noted above, no
later than October 3, 2014.

20

4. Statement that All Responsive Documents Have Been Produced

21

Plaintiff requests an Order compelling Defendants to supplement their responses

22

specifically noting that all responsive documents have been produced. The Court will make no
23
24
25

such order. The Court has addressed specific disputes as noted herein, and otherwise expects
the parties to complete discovery in a professional and efficient manner.

26
27
28

ORDER
PAGE - 7

1

5. Records Demonstrating Dr. Olson’s Involvement With Undergraduates

2

In RFP No. 25, Plaintiff sought documents demonstrating his involvement with

3

undergraduate students. Dkt. #103 at 11, fn. 4 and Dkt. #45. Defendants respond that they

4

have fully responded to the Request, and no other responsive documents are known to exist.

5

Dkts. #116 at 9. Accordingly, the Court directs Defendants to supplement their response to
6
7

indicate as much, and no further response will be compelled.

8

6. Redaction of Witness Location Information

9

The parties are directed to engage in a good faith discovery conference pertaining to

10

Plaintiff’s request for witness location information. Any remaining dispute may be raised

11

through the expedited joint motion process noted above, no later than October 3, 2014.
12
13

7. Order Compelling Additional Documents

14

Finally, Plaintiff seeks an Order compelling Defendants to produce documents for

15

which they have already stated an intent to provide if they exist. Dkt. #103 at 11-12. Defense

16

counsel has reiterated that she intends to follow through with her search and production if such
17
18

records are found. Dkt. #116 at 10. Accordingly, the Court declines to enter any additional

19

orders with respect to these documents. The Court has addressed specific disputes as noted

20

herein, and otherwise expects the parties to complete discovery in a professional and efficient

21

manner.

22

D. Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. #109)
23
24

Defendant has moved this Court for an Order precluding Plaintiff from taking the

25

deposition of University of Washington President Michael Young. Dkt. #109. The deadline

26

for filing discovery motions was August 15, 2014. Dkt. #20. Defendants filed their motion on

27

August 18, 2015, with no acknowledgment of the motion deadline or any explanation as to why

28

ORDER
PAGE - 8

1

the motion should be considered even though untimely filed. Accordingly, the Court STRIKES

2

the motion as untimely. However, the Court also expects Plaintiff to reevaluate the necessity of

3

taking and/or scope of Mr. Young’s deposition in light of the Court’s dismissal of Mr. Young

4

as a Defendant to this action.

5

E. Plaintiff’s Motions for Relief from Deadline (Dkts. #79 and #86)
6
7

Given the rulings set forth in this Order regarding discovery, the Court GRANTS IN

8

PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s various motions for relief from the pending pre-trial

9

deadlines. The Court will GRANT one additional month to complete discovery, and will

10

correspondingly extend the dispositive motion deadline by two weeks in an effort to keep this

11

matter moving forward on the current trial schedule.

However, the Court DENIES the

12
13

extension of any other remaining pre-trial deadlines and further declines to extend the current

14

trial date.

15

These extensions appear to moot Plaintiff’s third motion to extend the discovery

16

deadline (Dkt. #134), in which he seeks additional time to seek discovery from the Department
17
18
19

of Education. That motion will be STRICKEN AS MOOT, and Defendants are not required to
file any response.

20

F. Future Motions

21

Within the last month, the parties have filed numerous motions. While the parties

22

appear to go through the motions of engaging in the required conferences prior to filing their
23
24

motions, the Court is not entirely convinced that such meetings meet the spirit of attempting to

25

resolve their disputes in good faith. The Court particularly frowns upon Plaintiff’s counsel’s

26

apparent practice of calling defense counsel the day before he plans to file a motion, without

27

scheduling enough time to have a productive discussion or without providing defense counsel

28

ORDER
PAGE - 9

1

enough notice of the subject matter proposed to be discussed such that any conversation could

2

be productive. As a result, the Court has devoted immeasurable resources addressing these

3

disputes, many of which appear to have been avoidable had the parties sought more timely

4

assistance from the Court or come to agreements regarding the timing of discovery while

5

awaiting rulings from the Court on previously-filed motions. Accordingly, the Court now
6
7

warns the parties that the continued practice of filing untimely, serial motions may result in

8

monetary sanctions imposed on counsel.

9

professionally and efficiently, and engage in genuine efforts to resolve disputes before raising

10

The Court expects the parties to behave

them in this forum.

11

IV.

CONCLUSION

12
13

Having reviewed the parties’ motions, the responses in opposition thereto and replies in

14

support thereof, along with the supporting declarations and exhibits and the remainder of the

15

record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS:

16

1) The CLERK shall RENOTE Defendants’ Motion to Compel (Dkt. #92) for
17

consideration on September 19, 2014. Plaintiff SHALL deliver the documents at

18
19

issue in this motion (email correspondence with Miceal Vaughan) directly to the

20

Court in unredacted, hard copy form NO LATER THAN seven (7) days from the

21

date of this Order so that the Court may engage in an in camera review. Plaintiff

22

SHALL NOT file the documents with the Court.
23
24

2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief (Dkt. #113) is DENIED AS MOOT.

25

3) Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. #114) is DENIED AS PREMATURE.

26

4) Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint (Dkt. #98) is

27

DENIED.

28

ORDER
PAGE - 10

1

5) Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production (Dkt. #103) is GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART as discussed above.

2
3

6) Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. #109) is STRICKEN AS

4

UNTIMELY.

5

7) Plaintiff’s Motions for Relief from Deadlines (Dkt. #79 and #86) are GRANTED IN
6

PART AND DENIED IN PART. The CLERK shall RESET the parties’ discovery

7
8

deadline in this matter to October 15, 2014. The CLERK shall also RESET the

9

parties’ dispositive motion deadline to October 31, 2014.

10

8) Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Modify Case Schedule (Dkt. #134) is

11

STRICKEN AS MOOT.
12
13

DATED this 10 day of September, 2014.

14

A

15

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

ORDER
PAGE - 11