Fotualii v. GI Trucking Company

Filing 19

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 15 Motion to Compel. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (PM)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

NEPO FOTUALII,

10

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.

11
12

CASE NO. C17-0529-JCC

GI TRUCKING COMPANY, d/b/a ESTES
WEST, INC.,

13
Defendant.

14
15

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Dkt. No. 15).

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court DENIES
the motion for the reasons explained herein.

I.

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Nepo Fotualii (“Fotualii”) was terminated from his job as a dock worker at

Defendant Estes West (“West”). (Dkt. No. 1 at 3–4.) Fotualii, who is Samoan, brings state and
federal discrimination claims against West alleging that he was terminated because of his race
and national origin. (Id. at 5.) West asserts that Fotualii was terminated because of a safety
violation. (Dkt. No. 18 at 1–2.) In this motion, Fotualii asks the Court to decide a single
discovery dispute: is he entitled to information that could corroborate statements allegedly made
by a West executive before Fotoualii was terminated?

ORDER
C17-0529-JCC
PAGE - 1

1

II.

DISCUSSION

2

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any

3

party’s claim or defense . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). In addition to relevance, the Court must

4

determine whether discovery is “proportional to the needs of the case, considering the

5

importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative

6

access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in

7

resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its

8

likely benefit.” Id. The Court has broad discretion to decide whether to compel disclosure of

9

discovery. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th

10
11

Cir. 2002).
Fotualii submitted a declaration from a former coworker who asserts that West’s Vice

12

President, Kevin Young (“Young”) told him that a group of “Cubans” had been stealing from the

13

company down in Florida, and that Young believed there was a group of Samoans doing the

14

same thing in Washington. (Dkt. No. 17 at 2.) Young’s alleged comment was made before

15

Fotualii was terminated. (Dkt. No. 1 at 2–4.) Fotualii asks the Court to compel West to produce

16

“documents, memorandums, internal communications, or copies of any law enforcement reports

17

regarding the theft in Miami.” 1 (Dkt. No. 15 at 7.) Fotualii believes the information is relevant to

18

his claim that Young in fact made the statements to his coworker, and that Young believed

19

Cubans were stealing in Florida and also that Samoans were stealing in Washington. (Id.) West

20

resists the discovery request on the grounds that the information is not relevant to Fotualii’s

21

claims and not proportional to the needs of the lawsuit. (Dkt. No. 18 at 4–6.)

22
23
24
25
26

Fotualii believes information regarding theft in Miami will corroborate his coworker’s
testimony that Young made comments about Cubans stealing in Florida and Samoans stealing in
1

In response to Fotualii’s initial discovery request regarding this topic, West disclosed
that there was a police investigation into its parent company’s Miami terminal in 2012 that
uncovered large scale theft, and that Young was aware of the investigation but unaware of the
nationalities of anyone involved. (Dkt. No. 16-4 at 5.)
ORDER
C17-0529-JCC
PAGE - 2

1

Washington. While the Court can see how such information might corroborate Young’s alleged

2

statement regarding Cubans stealing in Florida, it struggles to see how it would corroborate his

3

alleged statement regarding Samoans stealing in Washington. Information regarding a 2012 theft

4

investigation in Miami, potentially involving Cubans, has nothing to do with 2015 theft

5

allegations involving Samoans in Washington. 2 More broadly, the Court does not think that

6

information regarding the Miami theft investigation would tend to prove material issues related

7

to Fotualii’s claims—i.e. that he was terminated because he was Samoan. The proper focus of

8

Rule 26(b) is the relevance of a party’s claim or defense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Here, the

9

information Fotualii seeks is quite attenuated from his discrimination claims.

10

Given the information’s minimal relevance to Fotualii’s claims, the Court concludes that

11

proportionately considerations weigh in favor of denying discovery. While employment

12

discrimination is certainly an important issue, the Court does not believe the requested discovery

13

is important to resolve Fotualii’s discrimination claim. The primary purpose for the information

14

is to corroborate a witness’s testimony, not to prove a dispositive issue in the case. In addition,

15

Fotualii has already received information that would appear to directly corroborate Young’s

16

statement. (See Dkt. No. 18 at 3.); see Note 2.

17

West has also demonstrated that it lacks access to the information Fotualii seeks. West

18

does not possess any of the requested documents because it does not own the Miami terminal. Id.

19

at 6.) In addition, West states that its parent company has diligently searched for the documents

20

Fotualii requested but not located any responsive information. (Id.) Given the minimal relevance

21

of the information and the lack of access to the documents, the Court finds the burden of

22

ordering the discovery would outweigh its benefit.

23
24
25
26

2

In contrast, West produced a document that Young had received that showed Fotualii
and others were suspected of committing theft. (Dkt. No. 18 at 3.) That information is directly
relevant to Fotualii’s discrimination claim as it not only tends to corroborate Young’s comment
about theft, but might provide a reason for why Fotualii was terminated.
ORDER
C17-0529-JCC
PAGE - 3

1

III.

CONCLUSION

2

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Dkt. No. 15) is DENIED.

3

DATED this 27th day of November 2017.

A

4
5
6

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER
C17-0529-JCC
PAGE - 4