City of Seattle v. Monsanto Company et al

Filing 135

Amended ORDER granting Defendant Monstanto Company's 118 Motion to Compel Response to Monsanto Company's Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production: Plaintiff is ORDERED to produce the requested documents by its second self-imposed deadline of 11/18/2019. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(MW)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

CITY OF SEATTLE, a municipal
corporation located in the County of King,
State of Washington,

10
11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
MONSANTO COMPANY, SOLUTIA,
INC., and PHARMACIA
CORPORATION, and Does 1 through 100,
Defendants.

Case No. 2:16-cv-00107-RSL
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT MONSANTO
COMPANY’S MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSE TO
MONSANTO COMPANY’S
SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES
AND REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION

15
16
17
18

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Monsanto Company’s Motion to

19

Compel Plaintiff City of Seattle to Respond to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories and

20

Requests for Production. Dkt. # 118. In this tort action, Plaintiff seeks relief from

21

Defendant and its predecessors under negligence and public nuisance theories for alleged

22

contamination in Seattle’s streets, stormwater, drainage, and waterways from Defendant’s

23

production of polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”). Dkt. #31 at ¶¶ 91-108, 130-137. In its

24

Motion to Compel, Defendant primarily requests documents supporting Plaintiff’s

25
26

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL- 1

1

computation of damages initially requested in November 2017. Dkt. # 118 at 2. Plaintiff

2

argues in response that it has already produced many of the requested documents, that it

3

continues an arduous process of locating others, and that it plans to have turned over all

4

requested documents by November 1, 2019. Dkt. #120 at 2-6. However, in electronic

5

communication between all counsel and the Court on October 31, 2019, Plaintiff

6

indicated that it had not turned over all of the documents Defendant requests. Plaintiff

7

promised to have completed the production by November 18, 2019.

8

Defendant has carried its burden in demonstrating the relevance of the requested

9

discovery. As the parties prepare for trial, Defendant must determine whether Plaintiff’s

10

computation of damages is accurate and adequately supported. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

11

26(a)(1)(A)(iii) (requiring a disclosing party to “make available for inspection and

12

copying as under Rule 34 the documents . . . on which each computation [of damages] is

13

based . . . “); City and Cnty. of San Francisco v. Tutor-Saliba Corp., 218 F.R.D. 219, 221

14

(N.D. Cal. 2003) (requiring Plaintiff to produce documents supporting its computation of

15

damages so that Defendant may “understand the contours of its potential exposure and

16

make informed decisions as to settlement”). Plaintiff responds that in producing over two

17

million documents, it has participated in the discovery process in “good faith.” Dkt. #120

18

at 7. However, the Rule requires more than good faith; it requires Plaintiff to make the

19

requested documents available for inspection and copying. Fed. R. Civ. P.

20

26(a)(1)(A)(iii).

21

Plaintiff has had ample time to produce the documents Defendant requests, and on

22

which Plaintiff relied for its computation of damages. Plaintiff did not meet its own self-

23

imposed deadline of November 1, 2019 and indicated it would need another few weeks to

24

produce the documents.

25
26

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL- 2

1

In order to ensure both parties are able to adequately prepare for trial in September

2

2020, Plaintiff is ORDERED to produce the requested documents by its second self-

3

imposed deadline of November 18, 2019. Accordingly, Defendant Monsanto Company’s

4

Motion to Compel Plaintiff City of Seattle to Respond to Defendant’s Special

5

Interrogatories and Requests for Production is GRANTED.

6
7

DATED this 7th day of November, 2019.

8

A
Robert S. Lasnik

9
10

United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL- 3