Kerrigan v. QBE Insurance Corporation

Filing 23

ORDER granting defendant's 19 Motion to Compel by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) Modified on 5/22/2017/cc plaintiff (RS).

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Case No. 16-1637RSM

MARY ANN KERRIGAN,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO COMPEL

Plaintiff,
v.
QBE INSURANCE CORPORATION, a
foreign insurance company,
Defendant.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant QBE Insurance Corporation

17
18

(“QBE”)’s Motion to Compel. Dkt. #19. Pursuant to Rule 37 and Local Rule 37, QBE moves

19

the Court for an Order compelling Plaintiff to “fully respond to QBE’s Requests for Production

20

and Interrogatories within one week.” Dkt. #19 at 2. Plaintiff Mary Ann Kerrigan fails to

21

oppose this Motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS QBE’s Motion.

22
23

I.

BACKGROUND

24

A full background of this case is not necessary for the purposes of this Motion. QBE

25

served Ms. Kerrigan with Requests for Production and Interrogatories on March 15, 2017. Dkt.

26

#20-1. Ms. Kerrigan’s responses to the Requests for Production and Interrogatories were due

27

on April 15, 2017, but she has not yet responded. See Dkt. #19. Counsel for QBE met and

28

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL - 1

1

conferred with Ms. Kerrigan by telephone on May 3, 2017. Dkt #20 at ¶ 3. During that call,

2

Kerrigan would not commit to responding to the Requests for Production and Interrogatories

3

within any specific timeframe. Id. Ms. Kerrigan also stated that her mailing address is now

4

10121 Evergreen Way #25-212, Everett, WA 98204.1 Id. at ¶ 4. QBE filed the instant Motion

5
6

to Compel on May 4, 2017. Ms. Kerrigan has subsequently communicated via email with QBE

7

but has failed to file a responsive brief or otherwise communicate with the Court. See Dkt. #22

8

at ¶ 3.

9

II.

10

DISCUSSION

If requested discovery is not answered, the requesting party may move for an order

11
12

compelling such discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). The party that resists discovery has the

13

burden to show why the discovery request should be denied. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519

14

F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975).

15
16

The record indicates that Plaintiff has intentionally failed to respond to QBE’s
discovery requests. Plaintiff has failed to explain her actions or why this Motion should be

17
18
19

denied, as is her burden. See Blankenship, supra. Accordingly, the Court finds that QBE’s
requested relief is warranted and will grant its Motion.

20

III.

21

CONCLUSION

Having reviewed the relevant briefing, the declarations and exhibits attached thereto,

22
23

and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS:

24

1) Defendant QBE’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. #19) is GRANTED.

25

2) Plaintiff is ORDERED to serve full and complete responses to QBE’s March 15,

26

2017, Requests for Production and Interrogatories within seven days of the date of

27

this Order.

28
1

The Court notes that this address now matches the address used by the Court for Ms. Kerrigan. See Docket.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL - 2

1

DATED this 22 day of May, 2017.

2
3
4
5

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL - 3