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)

Download PDF
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

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?