Board of Trustees of the Cement Masons & Plasterers Health & Welfare Trust et al v. Plaster Northwest LLC et al

Filing 9

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 7 Motion to Compel Discovery, by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8
9

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
CEMENT MASONS & PLASTERERS
HEALTH & WELFARE TRUST, et al.,

10
11
12

Plaintiffs,

Case No. C16-1918 RSM
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

v.
PLASTER NORTHWEST LLC, et al.

13

Defendants.

14

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery.
15
16

Dkt. #7. Plaintiff apparently served Plaster Northwest with a Request for Production on

17

January 12, 2017, via legal messenger. Dkt. #8 at ¶ 2, Ex. A. Plaster Northwest has not

18

responded to the Requests for Production, and therefore Plaintiffs seeks an Order compelling

19

responses. See id. at ¶ 4.
20
21

The Court DENIES this motion for several reasons.

First, Defendants have not

22

appeared in this action, and therefore, there is no party yet to compel. Second, and more

23

importantly, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1) precludes discovery before the parties

24

have conferred as required by Rule 26(f). It appears that Plaintiffs have prematurely served

25

discovery on Defendants, and they do not indicate otherwise. See Dkt. #8. Finally, this Court’s
26
27

Local Civil Rule 37(a)(1) requires that any motion for an Order compelling discovery must

28

include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with
ORDER
PAGE - 1

1

the person failing to provide discovery in an effort to resolve the dispute without Court

2

intervention. While Plaintiffs have provided emails they sent to Plaster Northwest requesting

3

certain documents and threatening litigation if it failed to provide them, those emails are dated

4

months prior to filing the instant motion, and do not reflect any effort to conference regarding

5

the instant motion. For all of these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion to compel
6
7
8

(Dkt. #7).
DATED this 13th day of April 2017.

9
10

A

11

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER
PAGE - 2