Gilmore v. Boeing Company

Filing 30

ORDER granting in part Plaintiff's 24 Motion to Compel Answers and Responses signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 MICHAEL GILMORE, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 CASE NO. C16-1617 MJP ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL v. THE BOEING COMPANY, Defendant. 14 15 16 The above-entitled Court, having received and reviewed: 17 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Answers and Responses (Dkt. No. 24); 18 2. Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Answers and Responses 19 20 21 22 23 (Dkt. No. 26); 3. Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Answers and Responses (Dkt. No. 28); all attached declarations and exhibits; and relevant portions of the record, rules as follows: IT IS ORDERED that the motion is PARTIALLY GRANTED. 24 ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL - 1 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that both sides will bear their own costs. 2 It appears to the Court from a review of the pleadings that Defendant has supplied a 3 4 majority of the responses and items which prompted Plaintiff to file this motion. There remains, however, one issue where further discovery is necessary. It appears to the 5 Court that Plaintiff’s job responsibilities are organized around a “piece work” system; i.e., an 6 employee checks out a part to work on, whichever part that might be, and all employees work 7 from a common “bin of work.” The end result is that no employee is responsible for a specific 8 part or a specific set of duties (aside from working on whichever part he or she checks out to the 9 best of his or her ability), therefore no one “replaces” a specific employee. The next employee 10 hired simply takes his or her place in the line of workers repairing parts from the common “bin 11 of work.” 12 Thus, a better way to identify Plaintiff’s “replacement” would be to provide the name and 13 personnel information of the next person promoted from the trainee pool to work in Plaintiff’s 14 area following Plaintiff’s departure. Defendant must produce that information to Plaintiff within 15 seven days of this order. 16 Regarding fees and costs for this motion, neither side will be forced to bear the other’s 17 expenses. There appear to have been problems on both sides of the discovery process here. 18 Plaintiff waited until the end of the discovery period to complain about incomplete answers; 19 Defendant failed to produce as promptly as it could have the answers needed by Plaintiff. The 20 Court’s case schedule deadlines forced a premature filing and the parties failed to confer until 21 there was an impasse. 22 23 Regarding future discovery disputes which must be brought before the Court, if any, the parties are directed to the Local Rule 39.1 unified filing format and directed to adhere to that. 24 ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL - 2 1 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel. 2 Dated: October 26, 2017. 4 A 5 Marsha J. Pechman United States District Judge 3 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL - 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?