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)

Download PDF
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

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?