Diversified Lenders, LLC v. Amazon Logistics, Inc. et al

Filing 91

ORDER denying plaintiff's 81 Motion to Compel Defendant Amazon Logistics, Inc. to Respond to Plaintiffs Third Set of Requests for Production and Third Set of Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions, signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7

DIVERSIFIED LENDERS, LLC,

8
9
10
11

Plaintiff,

Cause No. C16-1232RSL

v.
AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., and
VERTICAL HOLDINGS UNLIMITED,
LLC,

ORDER DENYING SECOND
MOTION TO COMPEL

12

Defendants.
13
14

AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC.,

15
16
17
18
19

Cross-Claim Plaintiff,
v.
VERTICAL HOLDINGS UNLIMITED,
LLC,
Cross-Claim Defendant.

20
21

This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiff Diversified Lenders, LLC’s Motion to

22

Compel Defendant Amazon Logistics, Inc. to Respond to Plaintiff’s Third Set of Requests for

23

Production and Third Set of Interrogatories and Request for Sanctions.” Dkt. # 81. Having

24

reviewed plaintiff’s motion, it is clear that it is not entitled to the relief requested.

25
26
ORDER DENYING SECOND
MOTION TO COMPEL

1
2
3
4
5

Plaintiff propounded its third sets of discovery requests on March 13, 2017. Plaintiff
agreed to a one week extension of the response deadline, but when it did not hear from
defendant, contacted opposing counsel on April 21, 2017. Defense counsel acknowledged that
the deadline had “gotten away from” them and served objections later that day. Plaintiff filed
this motion without meeting with defendant to discuss the objections. Plaintiff makes no effort to

6

address the merits (or lack thereof) of defendant’s objections in the motion, instead simply
7
8

objecting to the filing of objections.
The meet and confer requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) and LCR 37(a)(1) are

9
10

imposed for the benefit of the Court and the parties. They are intended to ensure that parties have

11

an inexpensive and expeditious opportunity to resolve discovery disputes and that only genuine

12

disagreements are brought before the Court. In the circumstances presented here, compliance

13

with the Rule would have involved face-to-face or telephonic communications regarding

14

defendant’s objections, plaintiff’s interests in the requested information, and the potential for

15

compromise. While plaintiff boldly declares that it conferred in good faith in an attempt to

16

obtain the relief requested in this motion, the Court finds that it did no such thing. Counsel’s

17

April 21, 2017, conversation regarding a missed deadline is no substitute for a full and fair

18
19

opportunity for the parties to explicate their arguments and objections without Court
intervention.

20
21
22

//

23
24

//

25
26
ORDER DENYING SECOND
MOTION TO COMPEL

-2-

1
2

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s second motion to compel (Dkt. # 81) is denied
for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) and LCR 37(a)(1).

3
4

Dated this 30th day of June, 2017.

5

A

6

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER DENYING SECOND
MOTION TO COMPEL

-3-