Anderson v. United States of America et al

Filing 92

ORDER denying plaintiff's 83 Motion for Discovery Sanctions. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (SWT)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

INGE T. ANDERSON,
Plaintiff,

9
10

v.

11

SCOTT ALAN ANDERSON,

12
13

NO. C17-0891RSL
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR DISCOVERY
SANCTIONS

Defendant.
This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery Sanctions.” Dkt.

14
15

# 83. Plaintiff “requests sanctions be imposed against Defendant and his counsel for their failure

16

to disclose fundamental discovery in this matter as part of a continuing pattern of discovery

17

abuse, ignoring Court Orders and Court Rule violations, which has caused substantial prejudice

18

to Plaintiff in her preparations to go to trial on the merits of the case.” Dkt. # 83 at 1. Other than

19
20
21
22
23

the fact that defendant failed to participate in a Rule 26(f) conference in October 2017, plaintiff
provides very few specifics regarding the alleged discovery violations or in support of her
allegations of contempt.
At the time this motion was filed, there were four discovery-related motions pending,

24

including plaintiff’s second motion to compel. Those motions have now been resolved. The

25

Court found that much of the information and documents sought by plaintiff had already been

26
27
28

provided, is not relevant to any of the remaining claims or defenses asserted in this litigation, is
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS - 1

1

not proportional to the needs of the case, and/or cannot provide further avenues of inquiry now

2

that discovery is closed. Dkt. # 89 at 3. The fact that defendant resisted discovery that was, for

3

the most part, improper is not sanctionable. With regards to defendant’s motions to quash

4
5

subpoenas, they were granted in large part with the caveat that if he intended to argue that the

6

calculation of the support he owes plaintiff under the I-894 contract should be reduced by the

7

amounts he has already transferred to plaintiff, he must produce responsive bank records

8

reflecting such transfers by March 28, 2019. Dkt. # 88 at 2. If further discovery violations have

9

occurred, they are not apparent from plaintiff’s motion for sanctions.

10

Plaintiff has failed to explain why she waited more than a year and a half to seek

11
12

sanctions for defendant’s lack of participation in the Rule 26(f) conference1 or why she filed this

13

discovery-related motion long after the deadline set by the Court. Dkt. # 63 at 3. Her avowed

14

concerns regarding the Court’s expenditures of time and resources is contradicted by the filing of

15

this largely duplicative request for sanctions while four discovery motions were pending.

16
17
18
19

Finally, plaintiff has not justified her request for the imposition of the extreme sanction of
dismissal as punishment for failing to participate in the Rule 26(f) conference and/or other
unspecified discovery abuses. As plaintiff acknowledges, the exclusion of evidence not produced

20

during discovery is an appropriate and measured response to a failure to produce if that failure is

21

unjustified or results in prejudice to plaintiff.

22
23

//

24
25
26
27
28

1

The United States, which was a defendant at the time the status report was filed, also did not
participate in the Rule 26(f) conference.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS - 2

1
2

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion for discovery sanctions (Dkt. # 83) is
DENIED.

3
4
5
6
7

Dated this 8th day of April, 2019.

A

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS - 3