Howery v. The Boeing Company

Filing 119

ORDER granting dft's 97 Motion to Compel by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

CRYSTAL HOWERY,
Case No. C14-1555 RSM

Plaintiff,
9
10

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO COMPEL

v.
THE BOEING COMPANY,
Defendant.

11
12

I.

13
14

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Compel. Dkt. #97.

15

Defendant asks the Court to compel responses to its First Set of Discovery Requests served on

16

Plaintiff, which were due on July 30, 2015, but to which Plaintiff objected in conclusory

17

manner. Id. Plaintiff continues to object to discovery on a number of bases. Dkt. #108. For

18

the reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion and awards it

19

attorney’s fees and costs.

20
21

II.

BACKGROUND

The procedural background of this matter has been set forth in prior Orders of the

22
Court and is incorporated by reference herein. See, e.g., Dkt. #69.
23
24
25

Defendant served Plaintiff with written discovery requests on June 25, 2015. See Dkt.
#98, Ex. A. On July 27, 2015, Plaintiff filed Objections to Boeing’s discovery requests. Dkt.

26
ORDER - 1

1

#81. Plaintiff apparently objects to Boeing’s entire set of discovery requests, asserting that

2

the information sought is (1) privileged, (2) beyond the permissible scope of discovery, (3)

3

confidential, and (4) unknown at this time. Id. Plaintiff reasserts those objections, and adds

4
5

several additional objections, in her response to the instant motion. Dkt. #108. However,
Plaintiff provides no substantive explanation of how Boeing’s discovery requests are

6
improper or seek privileged information.
7
8

On August 4, 2015, Defendant’s counsel emailed and mailed Plaintiff a request for a

9

Civil Rule 37(a)(1) discovery conference to discuss her objections. Dkt. #98, Ex. B. Plaintiff

10

did not respond. On August 10, 2015, Defendant’s counsel again emailed Plaintiff regarding

11

a discovery conference and informed her that it would file a motion to compel and seek

12

sanctions if she failed to cooperate in a Civil Rule 37(a)(1) conference and failed to respond

13

to Defendant’s discovery requests. Dkt. #98, Ex. C. Plaintiff again failed to respond. The

14

instant motion followed.

15

III.

DISCUSSION

16
A. Standard of Review
17
18
19

“Litigants ‘may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant
to the claim or defense of any party.’” Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d

20

625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)). “Relevant information for

21

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

22

admissible evidence.’” Id. “District courts have broad discretion in determining relevancy

23

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

24
25

requested discovery is not answered, the requesting party may move for an order compelling
such discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). “The party who resists discovery has the burden to

26
ORDER - 2

1

show that discovery should not be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and

2

supporting its objections.” Cable & Computer Tech., Inc. v. Lockheed Sanders, Inc., 175

3

F.R.D. 646, 650 (C.D. Cal. 1997).

4

B. Defendant’s Motion to Strike

5

As an initial matter, the Court addresses Defendant’s motion to strike. Dkt. #111.

6
Defendant seeks to strike Plaintiff’s untimely objections to the instant motion, which were not
7
8
9

filed until the day the motion was noted for consideration. In the alternative, Defendant seeks
additional time to substantively respond to Plaintiff’s objections. Id. The Court DENIES

10

Defendant’s motion.

11

response based on her erroneous belief that the noting date was a week later. See Dkt. #112.

12

Second, for the reasons below, the Court will grant Defendant’s motion after considering the

13

untimely response, and therefore requires no additional reply from Defendant.

14

First, the Court accepts Plaintiff’s explanation that she filed her

C. Defendant’s Discovery Requests

15

In this case, Defendant has sought routine discovery, including requests for

16
information about past lawsuits, a calculation of damages sought, and the bases for Plaintiff’s
17
18
19

claims. Dkt. #98, Ex. A. Defendant has also sought routine production of documents relevant
to Plaintiff’s claims. Id. Plaintiff appears to object primarily to the release of medical

20

information, alleging that she has not put such information at issue in this case. See Dkt.

21

#108.

22

information and two related Requests for Production. Dkt. #98, Ex. A, Interrogatory Nos. 15,

23

16 and 17 and RFP Nos. 16 and 17. All other requests are either aimed at information that

24
25

There appear to be three broad Interrogatories seeking medical and insurance

does not implicate Plaintiff’s health status, or is aimed specifically at the claims she has made
and the bases therefore. Dkt. #98, Ex. A.

26
ORDER - 3

1

A responding party that objects to interrogatories or requests for production of

2

documents is required to state objections with specificity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) and

3

34(b)(2)(B). Plaintiff has utterly failed to meet that requirement. She fails to state why she

4
5

will not provide basic information such as any prior lawsuits filed or email addresses that she
uses, and she fails to explain how other information related to her claims is not relevant or

6
discoverable. See Dkt. #108. With respect to the medical and insurance information sought
7
8

by Defendant, Plaintiff fails to explain what, if any of that information, is privileged and why.

9

In fact, she fails to identify any specific privilege she may be asserting, precluding the Court

10

from analyzing whether any such privilege actually exists. For these reasons, the Court

11

GRANTS Defendant’s motion and directs Plaintiff to fully respond to Defendant’s requests.

12

Her failure to comply with this Order may result in additional sanctions.

13
14
15
16
17

D. Attorney’s Fees and Costs
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A):
If the motion is granted . . . the court must, after giving an opportunity to
be heard, require the party . . . whose conduct necessitated the motion . . .
to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion,
including attorney’s fees. But the court must not order this payment if:

18

(i)

the movant filed the motion before attempting in good
faith to obtain the disclosure or discovery without court
action;

(ii)

the opposing party’s nondisclosure,
objection was substantially justified; or

(iii)

other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.

19
20
21
22

response,

or

23

In this case, the Court finds an award of attorney’s fees appropriate. Defendant made a good

24

faith effort to obtain discovery and discuss the subject of the instant motion prior to filing its

25

motion. However, Plaintiff failed to respond. Dkt. #98, Exs. B and C. Plaintiff has also

26
ORDER - 4

1

failed to substantially justify her non-response to either the discovery requests or Defendant’s

2

requests for a discovery conference. Given the history of this litigation, the Court also finds

3

no other circumstances that would make such an award unjust. Accordingly, the Court orders

4

Plaintiff to pay Defendant’s reasonable expenses associated with this motion.

5

IV.

CONCLUSION

6
Having reviewed Defendant’s motion to compel, the objections thereto, and the
7
8

remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS:

9

1. Defendant’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. #97) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall provide

10

complete discovery responses to Defendant no later than fourteen (14) days

11

from the date of this Order.

12

2. Defendant’s request for attorney’s fees and costs is GRANTED. Defendant shall

13

provide a Declaration of its fees associated with its Motion to Compel no later

14
15

than 10 days from the date of this Order.
DATED this 16th day of September 2015.

16

A

17
18

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER - 5