Boule v. Egbert et al

Filing 59

ORDER granting Defendant's 40 Motion to Compel; granting Defendant's 55 Motion to Allow Certain Discovery After March 26, 2018. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6
7

ROBERT BOULE,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

Case No. C17-0106RSM

v.
ERIK EGBERT, et al.,

11

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
COMPEL AND FOR EXTENSION OF
DISCOVERY DEADLINE

Defendants.

12
13

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motions to Compel Discovery

14

(Dkt. #40) and to Allow Certain Discovery After March 26th (Dkt. #55). Having reviewed the

15

motions, the responses thereto and replies in support thereof, along with the remainder of the

16

record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS:
17
18

1. Defendant’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. #40) is GRANTED. For the reasons set forth

19

by Defendant in his motion, the Court agrees that Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures are

20

deficient with respect to his calculation of damages. Accordingly, no later than ten

21

(10) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall supplement his initial

22

disclosures with an explanation of how he calculated his lost-profit claim and an

23
24

identification of the documents he used to make such calculations. Likewise, no later

25

than ten (10) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall fully respond to

26

Defendant’s Interrogatory No. 10 and Request for Production No. 6 regarding Fikret

27

Kaya. The Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiff presents no applicable authority

28

ORDER
PAGE - 1

precluding the release of such information in the context of civil litigation discovery.

1
2

Finally, it now appears that Plaintiff will respond to Defendant’s Interrogatory Nos.

3

19 and 20. Therefore, no later than ten (10) days from the date of this Order,

4

Plaintiff shall serve his supplemental responses to those requests.

5

2. Defendant’s Motion to Allow Certain Discovery After March 26, 2018 (Dkt. #55) is
6

GRANTED. For the reasons set forth in Defendant’s motion, the Court finds good

7
8

cause for an extension of the discovery deadline for certain areas of discovery.

9

Accordingly, Defendant may resume the deposition of Plaintiff, depose Agents

10

Andersen and Olson, and subpoena certain records from the United States no later

11

than April 23, 2018. Although Plaintiff does not object to an extension of the
12
13

discovery deadline, he does object to the scope and proposed extension. Dkt. #56.

14

However, Plaintiff has failed to propound his own motion, and fails to show good

15

cause for an extension of all discovery. Therefore, for all discovery other than that

16

identified by this Court above, the discovery deadline of March 26, 2018, applies.

17

Nothing in this Order precludes Plaintiff from moving for an extension of the

18
19

discovery deadline should he believe such an extension is necessary. However,

20

Plaintiff must support such a motion under the applicable Rule 16 standard.

21

DATED this 27 day of March, 2018.

22

A

23
24

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28

ORDER
PAGE - 2