Somerlott v. McNeilus Truck and Manufacturing, Inc.

Filing 33

ORDER denying plaintiff's 22 Motion for Discovery signed by Judge Richard A Jones.(RS)

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

BENJAMIN SOMERLOTT,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

Case No. C16-789-RAJ

v.

ORDER

MCNEILUS TRUCK AND
MANUFACTURING, INC.,

13

Defendant.

14
I.

15
16

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Benjamin Somerlott’s Discovery

17

Motion Regarding 30(b)(6) Depositions. Dkt. # 22. For the reasons that follow, the

18

Court DENIES the motion.
II. BACKGROUND

19
20
21
22

This is a products liability case. The Court describes the facts as alleged in the
complaint, expressing no opinion on whether those allegations will prove true.
On October 28, 2014, Somerlott was operating a garbage truck designed and

23

manufactured by Defendant McNeilus Truck and Manufacturing, Inc. (“McNeilus”).

24

Dkt. # 3 (Amended Complaint) ¶ 3.01. As Somerlott was doing so, the truck ejected a

25

broken beer bottle that severely lacerated his arm. ¶ 3.02. The truck lacked proper safety

26

features or warnings that would have prevented this from happening. Id. Somerlott

27

sustained serious injuries, loss of earnings, and other serious consequences as a result of

28

ORDER – 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

the injury to his arm. ¶ 6.02.
On May 28, 2016, Somerlott filed this action against McNeilus alleging claims for
(1) strict products liability, (2) negligence, and (3) breach of an implied warranty.
Dkt. # 1. He later amended his complaint. Dkt. # 3. Now, Somerlott requests that the
Court allow him to take two Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of McNeilus and that he be
permitted up to fourteen hours to complete these depositions. Dkt. # 22. McNeilus
opposes the motion. Dkt. # 24.
III. LEGAL STANDARD

8
9
10
11
12
13

The Court has broad discretion to control discovery. Avila v. Willits Envtl.
Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011). That discretion is guided by
several principles. Most importantly, the scope of discovery is broad. “Parties may
obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim
or defense . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
IV. DISCUSSION

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Somerlott requests permission to take two Rule 30(b)(6) depositions and to have
fourteen hours to conduct these depositions. He contends that this is necessary because
of the voluminous documents at issue and the technical complexity of his claims.
As an initial matter, Somerlott has failed to comply with the meet-and-confer
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) and LCR 37(a)(1). The former
provides, “[t]he motion must include a certification 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 obtain it without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). The
latter provides:
(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, the court may deny the
ORDER – 2

1
2

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.

3

W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 37(a)(1). Neither McNeilus’s motion nor his supporting

4

documentation contains a certification to this effect. The closest McNeilus comes to

5

providing a sufficient certification is his representation that “Plaintiff and Defendant have

6

corresponded and discussed the conduct of 30(b)(6) depositions repeatedly. No such

7

depositions have been taken.” Dkt. # 22 at 2. This assertion does not comply with the

8

meet-and-confer requirements of the Federal and Local rules. As noted above, the Court

9

may thus deny the motion without addressing the merits of the discovery dispute. The

10
11

Court DENIES Somerlott’s motion on this basis.
Even if Somerlott had complied with the applicable meet-and-confer requirements,

12

the Court agrees with McNeilus that Somerlott’s motion is premature. Given that no

13

Rule 30(b)(6) deposition has yet occurred, Somerlott cannot show that additional time is

14

necessary under Rule 30(d)(1) to conduct a fair examination.
V. CONCLUSION

15
16
17

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Somerlott’s Discovery Motion
Regarding 30(b)(6) Depositions. Dkt. # 22.

18
19

DATED this 7th day of July, 2017.

20
21

A

22
23

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

ORDER – 3