QOTD Film Investment Ltd. v. Doe 1 et al

Filing 107

ORDER denying defendant's 97 Motion for Protective Order signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT) (cc: Brian Wilson via USPS)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8

QOTD FILM INVESTMENT, LTD,

9

Plaintiff,
Case No. C16-0371RSL

10
11

v.
MARY STARR, et al.,

12

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER

Defendants.

13
14

This matter comes before the Court on defendant Brian Wilson’s “Motion for a

15

Protective Order Regarding Plaintiff’s First Set of Discovery.” Dkt. # 97. Having

16

reviewed the memoranda, declaration, and exhibits submitted by the parties as well as the

17

sealed Declaration of Judy Rushing (Dkt. # 96-2), the Court finds as follows:

18

Before bringing a motion for protective order, the parties must confer in good faith

19

in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). Pursuant

20

to LCR 26(c)(1), “[a] good faith effort to confer requires a face-to-face meeting or a

21

telephone conference.” Defendant’s June 6, 2017, email is insufficient, and no “course of

22

conduct” between the parties (Dkt. # 104 at 2) can abrogate the requirements of the local

23

rules.

24
25

The meet and confer requirements are imposed for the benefit of the Court and the
parties. They are intended to ensure that parties have an inexpensive and expeditious

26
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER - 1

1

opportunity to resolve discovery disputes and that only genuine disagreements are

2

brought before the Court. A good faith effort to resolve this matter would have involved a

3

face-to-face or telephonic exchange of information regarding defendant’s medical

4

condition, how it impacts his ability to participate in this case, and the requested

5

accommodation. At present, plaintiff’s counsel has no details, much less evidence,

6

regarding Mr. Wilson’s medical condition.1 It appears that plaintiff is nevertheless willing

7

to extend the time in which to provide discovery responses, and the parties could have

8

negotiated the details of that extension and a sensible procedure for resolving the dispute,

9

including seeking a competency determination, appointing a guardian, and/or engaging in

10

settlement negotiations. None of these things happened, however. Because no meaningful

11

discussion regarding the need for a protective order took place, defendant has not satisfied

12

the meet and confer requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) or LCR 26(c)(1).

13
14
15

For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion for protective order (Dkt.
# 97) is DENIED.

16
17

Dated this 24st day of July, 2017.

18

A

19

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
1

24
25
26

While the filing of Ms. Rushing’s declaration under seal was appropriate in the context
of counsel’s motion to withdraw, at this juncture additional disclosures are necessary. An actual
meet and confer would have given the parties an opportunity to make appropriate disclosures in
a non-public setting that could have forestalled this motion and/or resulted in a negotiated path
forward.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER - 2