Premier Harvest et al v. AXIS Surplus Insurance Company et al

Filing 50

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 39 Motion to Compel signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (TH)

Download PDF
THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 PREMIER HARVEST LLC, et al., 10 Plaintiffs, 11 CASE NO. C17-0784-JCC ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ CROSS-MOTION TO COMPEL v. AXIS SURPLUS INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., 12 13 Defendants. 14 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s cross-motion to compel (Dkt. No. 39). 15 16 Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court DENIES 17 the motion for the reasons explained herein. 18 I. BACKGROUND 19 This is an insurance dispute stemming from December 2015 and January 2016 weather- 20 related losses. Plaintiffs assert Defendants have breached their contract with Plaintiffs and/or 21 violated insurance and consumer protection regulations when they acted in bad faith and 22 negligently processed their claims for the 2015 and 2016 losses. (Dkt. No. 1-6 at 9–13.) 23 According to Plaintiffs, their total damages, including consequential damages, are well in excess 24 of the $3 million advanced to date by Defendant Axis Surplus Insurance Company. (Id.) 25 Trial is scheduled for June 25, 2018, with a discovery cutoff 120 days prior. (Dkt. No. 26 25.) Plaintiffs have served interrogatories and requests for production, but allege Defendants ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ CROSSMOTION TO COMPEL C17-0784-JCC PAGE - 1 1 have inappropriately refused to respond. (Dkt. No. 39 at 11.) Plaintiffs ask the Court for an order 2 compelling Defendants to immediately produce their insurance claims file and privilege logs, 3 and serve initial answers and responsive documents by October 30, 2017. (Dkt. No. 48 at 3.) 4 Plaintiffs also ask for an award of reasonable expenses incurred to bring this motion. (Dkt. No. 5 39 at 11.) Defendants assert the issue is moot. (Dkt. Nos. 44, 46). Now that the Court has denied 6 their motion to dismiss and motion for a protective order, they intend to comply fully with their 7 discovery obligations. (Dkt. Nos. 13, 33, 43.) 8 II. DISCUSSION 9 Local Rule 37(a)(1) provides in relevant part: (1) Meet and Confer Requirement. Any motion for an order compelling disclosure or discovery must include a certification, in the motion or in a declaration or affidavit, 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 resolve the dispute without court action. The certification must list the date, manner, and participants to the conference. If the movant fails to include such a certification, the court may deny the motion without addressing the merits of the dispute. A good faith effort to confer with a party or person not making a disclosure or discovery requires a face-to-face meeting or a telephone conference. 10 11 12 13 14 15 Here, Plaintiff’s motion merely states that “Counsel for Premier Harvest have conferred 16 17 18 with defense counsel regarding AXIS’s position with respect to discovery.” (Dkt. No. 39 at 5.) This certification is insufficient to meet the detailed requirements of Local Rule 37(a)(1). 19 Therefore, the Court declines to address the merits of Plaintiff’s motion, and cautions both 20 parties of the importance of seeking to resolve discovery disputes privately without needless 21 Court intervention. 22 23 III. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Dkt. No. 39) is DENIED. 24 25 26 CONCLUSION // // ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ CROSSMOTION TO COMPEL C17-0784-JCC PAGE - 2 1 DATED this 25th day of October 2017. 2 3 4 A 5 6 7 John C. Coughenour UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ CROSSMOTION TO COMPEL C17-0784-JCC PAGE - 3

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?