Anderson v. Richards et al

Filing 58

ORDER denying plaintiff's 45 Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories, signed by Hon. Brian A Tsuchida. **2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Sean Anderson, Prisoner ID: 957450)(SWT)

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

6
7
8

SEAN D. ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,

9

11

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL

v.

10

CASE NO. C17-58-RSL-BAT

ALLEN K. RICHARDS,
Defendant.

12
13

Sean D. Anderson moves to Compel Answers to Interrogatories (Dkt. 45). The Court

14

concludes Mr. Anderson failed to comply with Rule 37. Accordingly, the motion (Dkt. 45) is

15

denied.

16

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1):

17

. . . On notice to other parties and all affected persons, a party may move for an
order compelling disclosure or discovery. The 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.

18
19
20

Here, Mr. Anderson moves for a Court order compelling defendants to respond to his “initial

21

interrogatories in a more thorough and non-evasive manner.” Dkt. 45. Mr. Anderson, however,

22

failed to certify he conferred or attempted to confer with defendants’ counsel regarding the

23

requested discovery. Id. Therefore, Mr. Anderson has not complied with Rule 37.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL - 1

1

Further, pursuant to the Court’s December 26, 2017, Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion

2

for 15 Additional Interrogatories (Dkt. 43), the deadline by which discovery must be completed

3

was extended to February 12, 2018. Mr. Anderson’s motion was not filed until February 15,

4

2018 and, as such, is also untimely. 1 Dkt. 45.

5
6

As Mr. Anderson has not complied with Rule 37 and his Motion to Compel (Dkt. 45) is
untimely, the motion is hereby DENIED.

7

The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to the plaintiff and counsel for defendants.

8
DATED this 8th day of March, 2018.

9
10

A

11

BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA
United States Magistrate Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

1

The Court finds it is not necessary to also address defendants’ additional arguments in detail. However, the Court
does note that, even if it were to consider the substance of Mr. Anderson’s motion, he does not contend that
defendants have failed to provide answers to his interrogatories but only, it seems, that he would like them answered
differently. Furthermore, Mr. Anderson fails to identify which answers he believes are deficient or incomplete. Dkt.
46.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL - 2