Rodriguez v. Hemit et al

Filing 60

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 46 Motion to Compel signed by Judge Richard A Jones. (TH) (cc: Plaintiff via first class mail)

1

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7

8 JERARDO RODRIGUEZ,
9
10
11

Plaintiff,
v.
SOHI HEMIT, et al.,

12

Defendants.

13
14

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. C16-778-RAJ
ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. Dkt. # 46.

15 Plaintiff argues that Defendants have not produced the identities of individuals with whom
16 Plaintiff conversed telephonically. Id. Defendants respond that they have produced this
17 information and have submitted supplements as additional information becomes available.
18 Dkt. # 51.
19

It appears that Plaintiff is not satisfied with how Defendants are responding to his
discovery requests. But Plaintiff’s understanding of the purported telephone records is

20
21

based on speculation. To be sure, the Court appreciates the parties’ ongoing
communications and attempts to work together. However, the Court does not find that

22 Defendants are withholding information in their possession. Of course, the Court will
23 continue to expect Defendants to supplement their discovery responses to Plaintiff as new

information surfaces.
ORDER-1

1

For these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion. Dkt. # 46. In the future,

2 Plaintiff may move this Court to compel Defendants to produce information if Plaintiff can
3 point to articulable facts evidencing Defendants’ possession of relevant records that are
4 being improperly withheld. The Court does not find that the record supports such a
5
6

conclusion—or even an inference—at this time.
Dated this 1st day of March, 2018.

7

A

8

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

ORDER-2