Electric Mirror, LLC v. Avalon Glass and Mirror Company et al

Filing 110

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 96 Motion to Compel; denying defendants' request for attorney's fees, signed by Judge Richard A. Jones. (SWT)

1

THE HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

ELECTRIC MIRROR, LLC,

10
11
12
13

Plaintiff,

Case No. 16-0665-RAJ

v.
AVALON GLASS AND MIRROR CO.
and GLASSWERKS LA, INC.,

ORDER

Defendants.

14
15
16

This comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. Dkt. # 96.

17

Defendants oppose the Motion. Dkt. # 100. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1)

18

and LCR 37(a)(1) require the parties to meet and confer prior to filing a motion for an

19

order compelling discovery. The former provides, “[t]he motion must include a

20

certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the

21

person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without

22

court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). The latter provides:

23

(1) Meet and Confer Requirement. Any motion for an order
compelling disclosure or discovery must include a certification,
in the motion or in a declaration or affidavit, that the movant
has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the
person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an
effort to resolve the dispute without court action. The
certification must list the date, manner, and participants to the
conference. If the movant fails to include such a certification,

24
25
26
27
ORDER - 1

the court may deny the motion without addressing the merits of
the dispute. A good faith effort to confer with a party or person
not making a disclosure or discovery requires a face-to-face
meeting or a telephone conference.

1
2
3
4

W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 37(a)(1). This Court’s Standing Order also requires that

5

counsel contemplating the filing of a motion “shall first contact opposing counsel to

6

discuss thoroughly, preferably in person, the substance of the contemplated motion and

7

any potential resolution.”

8

The Court and Federal and Local Rules have this requirement to minimize waste

9

of judicial time and resources on issues that could be resolved amongst the parties. After

10

reviewing the parties’ submissions, it is clear that the issues between the parties are

11

exactly the type of issues that the meet-and-confer requirement is tailored to address.

12

There is no indication that the parties discussed the substance of the contemplated motion

13

or any potential resolution. There is also no indication that the parties attempted in good

14

faith to resolve the dispute without court action. As the parties have failed to meet and

15

confer prior to the filing of this Motion, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is DENIED.

16

Dkt. # 96. Further, the Court has low tolerance for gamesmanship in discovery matters

17

and finds that the sanction of attorney fees in this matter is unnecessary at this time, but

18

may be inclined to do so in the future. Defendants’ request for attorney’s fees associated

19

with responding to this Motion is DENIED.

20
21

Dated this 14th of August, 2018.

22
23

A

24
25

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

26
27
ORDER - 2