Alpert v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC et al

Filing 110

ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 83 Motion to Compel Production and Other Relief signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (TH)

Download PDF
1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 SPENCER ALPERT, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 14 CASE NO. C15-1164 RAJ ORDER v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of 18 documents and sanctions. Dkt. # 83. Defendants oppose the motion. Dkt. # 85. For the 19 reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motion. 20 The Court is disappointed with the breakdown in civility between the parties and 21 their counsel. Defendants contend that Plaintiff did not properly meet and confer with them 22 because, had he done so, this motion would not have been filed. Dkt. # 85 at 2. Plaintiff 23 claims he did properly meet and confer; he attaches a letter that his counsel submitted to 24 Defendants’ counsel describing various discovery issues that appear in the pending motion. 25 Dkt. # 84-9. It is abundantly clear to this Court that the parties have relegated their 26 discovery approach to standards that do not conform to the minimum levels of civility. This 27 ORDER- 1 1 Court has an extremely challenging and congested motions docket. Consequently, this 2 Court has limited time and resources to dedicate to the parties’ discovery antics which can 3 best be described as playing games. While those tactics may be appropriate for the 4 playground, they will not be tolerated with this Court. 5 The Court has broad discretion to control discovery. Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 6 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 7 833 (9th Cir. 2011), In re Sealed Case, 856 F.2d 268, 271 (D.C. Cir. 1988). That 8 discretion is guided by several principles. Most importantly, the scope of discovery is 9 broad. A party must respond to any discovery request that is not privileged and that is 10 “relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, 11 considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, 12 the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance 13 of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the 14 proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 15 If a party refuses to respond to discovery, the requesting party “may move for an 16 order compelling disclosure or discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). “The party who 17 resists discovery has the burden to show that discovery should not be allowed, and has 18 the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections.” Cable & Computer 19 Tech., Inc. v. Lockheed Saunders, Inc., 175 F.R.D. 646, 650 (C.D. Cal. 1997). 20 The parties agree that Defendants will produce the agreements between 21 Nationstar, Harwood, and Assurant Specialty Properties, as well as make their designee 22 available for a continued deposition. Dkt. # 85 at 2. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is 23 MOOT with regard to these requests for relief. 24 Plaintiff moves the Court for an order permitting his experts to amend or modify 25 their opinions. Dkt. # 83. The Court has already denied such relief. Dkt. # 80 at 2. The 26 Court will not entertain such a delayed argument to reconsider that order and therefore 27 DENIES this request for relief. ORDER- 2 1 Plaintiff seeks production of any other records that have not been disclosed 2 regarding insurance policies placed on other Washington borrowers. Dkt. # 83. The 3 Court finds that this discovery request is appropriately related to Plaintiff’s CPA claim 4 and therefore GRANTS the motion with regard to this request. 5 In their opposition, Defendants alert the Court to Plaintiff’s violation of the 6 District’s Local Rules. Dkt. # 85 at 3. Defendants state—and Plaintiff concedes—that he 7 conducted the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Mr. Hyne without counsel. Dkt. # 83 at 7. 8 This is a blatant violation of this District’s Local Rules and it appears to be a complete 9 abdication of responsibility on behalf of Plaintiff’s counsel. Local Rules W.D. Wash. 10 LCR 83.2(b)(5). The Court admonishes Plaintiff and his counsel; the Court will consider 11 sanctioning both Plaintiff and his counsel should they continue to act in ways abhorrent 12 to this federal forum. 13 It is unclear to the Court how the parties have been cooperating with each other, but 14 it is clear that they have not been doing so in a productive and collegial manner. The Court 15 has low tolerance for gamesmanship. The Court expects the parties to cooperate and 16 display a higher level of professionalism as this lawsuit proceeds or sanctions will be 17 imposed. Ultimately, however, the Court declines to impose sanctions at this time. The 18 parties are responsible for their costs on this motion and the opposition. 19 Dated this 21st day of June, 2018. 20 21 A 22 23 The Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 ORDER- 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?