Karnoski et al v. Trump et al

Filing 486

ORDER granting the State of Washington's 482 Motion to Compel Defendants to Seek and Produce Information Reasonably Available and Within Their Control. Defendants shall produce the requested information or file their stipulation by May 8, 2020. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM)

Case 2:17-cv-01297-MJP Document 486 Filed 04/20/20 Page 1 of 6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

RYAN KARNOSKI, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

11
12
13
14

v.
DONALD J TRUMP, et al.,

CASE NO. C17-1297 MJP
ORDER ON LCR 37 JOINT
DISCOVERY MOTION TO
COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO SEEK
AND PRODUCE INFORMATION
REASONABLY AVAILABLE AND
WITHIN THEIR CONTROL

Defendants.

15
16

The above-entitled Court, having received and reviewed the LCR 37 Joint Submission

17

Regarding the State of Washington’s discovery requests (Dkt. No. 482), along with relevant

18

portions of the record, rules as follows:

19
20
21

IT IS ORDERED that Washington’s Motion to Compel Defendants to Seek and Produce
Information Reasonably Available and Within Their Control is GRANTED:
(1) Defendants must fully respond to the State of Washington’s discovery requests by

22

conducting a reasonable and comprehensive search for responsive information. If no

23

such information exists, Defendants must provide amended discovery responses

24

stating that “no such information exists” along with a declaration from Defendants’
ORDER ON LCR 37 JOINT DISCOVERY MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO SEEK AND PRODUCE
INFORMATION REASONABLY AVAILABLE AND WITHIN THEIR CONTROL - 1

Case 2:17-cv-01297-MJP Document 486 Filed 04/20/20 Page 2 of 6

1

counsel describing Defendants’ search criteria and declarations from each document

2

custodian searched providing that no such responsive material exists.

3

(2) Alternatively, as proposed by Washington, Defendants may stipulate that they will

4

limit their evidence at trial on the issues of lethality, deployability, unit cohesion, and

5

budget constraints to the information they identified in this motion as responsive to

6

Washington’s discovery requests. (Id. at 25 n. 12.)

7
8
9
10

(3) Defendants are to produce the requested information or file the proposed stipulation
by May 8, 2020.
Discussion
In this LCR 37 Joint Submission, the State of Washington moves to compel Defendants

11

to provide a complete response to Washington’s discovery requests—specifically,

12

Interrogatories, Nos. 9 and 12 and Requests for Production, Nos. 9, 12, 14-17 and 20—a subset

13

of the 18 interrogatories and 21 requests for production Washington served on Defendants on

14

July 5, 2019. Washington’s discovery requests focus on information that would establish the

15

number of transgender Washingtonians who have been affected by the military’s policies with

16

respect to open service by transgender members, both leading up to and following Defendants’

17

current ban on open service. (Dkt. No. 482 at 2.) In response to Washington’s discovery

18

requests, Defendants provided answers to 12 interrogatories and have produced 36 documents,

19

but answered many of the requests by asserting that they “have identified no material responsive

20

to Plaintiff-Intervenor’s request” or that they do not “track” the requested information. (Dkt. No.

21

482 at 7-9; Dkt. No. 483, Declaration of Chalia Stallings-Ala’ilima (“Stallings-Ala’ilima Decl.”),

22

¶ 2, Ex. A at 25-31, 33-34; ¶ 3, Ex. B at 26-31, 34-37.)

23
24
ORDER ON LCR 37 JOINT DISCOVERY MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO SEEK AND PRODUCE
INFORMATION REASONABLY AVAILABLE AND WITHIN THEIR CONTROL - 2

Case 2:17-cv-01297-MJP Document 486 Filed 04/20/20 Page 3 of 6

1

Arguing that Defendants’ limited production and ambiguous responses make it

2

impossible to determine whether Defendants conducted inadequate searches or if the requested

3

information actually does not exist, Washington now asks the Court to compel Defendants to

4

fully respond to these discovery requests by conducting additional searches or stating clearly that

5

no additional information exists. (Dkt. No. 482 at 14.) Where no responsive information exists,

6

Washington asks the Court to compel Defendants to submit sworn affidavits describing their

7

searches and the negative outcomes for each. (Id.) Defendants make two arguments in response:

8

(1) The Court may only review material considered by the Panel of Experts, so the additional

9

information Washington requests is irrelevant, and (2) Defendants have already fully complied

10

with their discovery obligations. (Dkt. No. 482 at 14-24.) The Court finds neither of

11

Defendants’ arguments persuasive.

12

Defendants first argue, as they have before, that Washington is not entitled to further

13

information because the Ninth Circuit was clear in previously granting the writ of mandamus that

14

“the reasonableness of the 2018 Policy must be evaluated on the record supporting that decision

15

and with the appropriate deference due to a proffered military decision.” (Dkt. No. 482 at 15

16

(citing Karnoski v. Trump, 926 F.3d 1180, 1207 (9th Cir. 2019)).) According to Defendants,

17

“Washington’s insistence on extra-record discovery would essentially create a new record and

18

invite the Court to make its own determination of the appropriate policy.” (Dkt. No. 482 at 16.)

19

But as the Court recently explained, Defendants confuse the evidentiary standard at trial

20

with the broader discovery standard, which allows parties to obtain discovery regarding any

21

nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26. Under

22

Rule 26, the concept of relevance “‘has been construed broadly to encompass any matter that

23

bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may

24
ORDER ON LCR 37 JOINT DISCOVERY MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO SEEK AND PRODUCE
INFORMATION REASONABLY AVAILABLE AND WITHIN THEIR CONTROL - 3

Case 2:17-cv-01297-MJP Document 486 Filed 04/20/20 Page 4 of 6

1

be in the case.’” Olberg v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. C18-0573-JCC, 2019 WL 6033699, at *2

2

(W.D. Wash. Nov. 14, 2019) (quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351

3

(1978)); (see also Dkt. No. 485 at 3-5 (explaining that the standard for evaluating the record at

4

trial is not before the Court on a discovery motion).)

5

Here, Plaintiffs seek information that would establish the number of transgender

6

Washingtonians who have been affected by the military’s policies with respect to open service

7

by transgender members, both leading up to and following Defendants’ current ban on open

8

service. (Dkt. No. 482 at 2.) As Washington argues, this information is relevant to the Court’s

9

review of Defendants’ ban on transgender military service under the heightened scrutiny

10

standard identified by the Ninth Circuit. (Dkt. No. 482 at 10.) This standard requires the Court

11

to review Defendants’ process and intent, and whether the ban significantly furthers important

12

government interests. (Dkt. No. 482 at 10 (citing Karnoski, 926 F.3d at 1199-1200).) The Court

13

finds that Washington’s requests seek information that is relevant to that inquiry.

14

Defendants next argue that they have produced all responsive material in their

15

possession. In response, Washington points to several instances where it appears Defendants

16

failed to conduct adequate searches. For example, in response to Interrogatory No. 9, asking

17

Defendants to identify the number of transgender Washington service members, Defendants

18

objected that they “do not track service members or applicants by gender identity and [have] no

19

means of searching for the requested information as it pertains to ‘transgender Washington

20

service members.’” (Stallings-Ala'ilima Decl., Ex. A at 25-26.) Yet in a related case, Doe 2 v.

21

Esper, No. CV 17-1597 (CKK), 2019 WL 4394842 (D.D.C. Sept. 13, 2019), Defendants

22

produced a spreadsheet showing at least eight transgender service members stationed in

23

Washington at Fort Lewis and Naval Base Kitsap, indicating that Defendants do track such

24
ORDER ON LCR 37 JOINT DISCOVERY MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO SEEK AND PRODUCE
INFORMATION REASONABLY AVAILABLE AND WITHIN THEIR CONTROL - 4

Case 2:17-cv-01297-MJP Document 486 Filed 04/20/20 Page 5 of 6

1

information. (Stallings-Ala’ilima Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. D.) Further, Washington contends that during

2

the Parties’ meet and confer on March 8, 2020, Defendants’ represented that they were aware of

3

approximately 1,500 service members nationwide with a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, further

4

evidence that Defendants track this information. (Id., ¶ 5.)

5

Defendants also frequently responded to requests by stating that they have “identified no

6

material responsive to Plaintiff-Intervenor’s request,” creating confusion about whether

7

Defendants did not search for the information or whether responsive documents actually do not

8

exist. (Dkt. No. 482 at 7-9; Stallings-Ala’ilima Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. A at 25-31, 33-34; ¶ 3, Ex. B at

9

26-31, 34-37.) Defendants’ responses, coupled with evidence that they failed to produce certain

10

non-privileged, requested documents, demonstrate that they have not complied with their

11

discovery obligations. See, e.g., Trotsky v. Travelers Indem. Co., No. C11-2144-JCC, 2013 WL

12

12116153, at *3 (W.D. Wash. May 8, 2013) (finding that defendants could not respond to

13

discovery requests by asserting that “no such documents exist” where there was evidence to the

14

contrary). The Court therefore GRANTS Washington’s motion and ORDERS Defendants to

15

fully and adequately respond to Washington’s discovery requests.

16
Conclusion
17
Finding that Washington’s discovery requests seek relevant information and Defendants
18
have failed to adequately respond, the Court GRANTS Washington’s motion and ORDERS the
19
Defendants to adequately respond to Washington’s requests by diligently searching for and
20
producing the requested information. Where no such information exists, Defendants must
21
provide amended discovery responses stating that “no such information exists” along with a
22
declaration from Defendants’ counsel describing Defendants’ search criteria and declarations
23
from each document custodian searched providing that no such responsive material exists.
24
ORDER ON LCR 37 JOINT DISCOVERY MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO SEEK AND PRODUCE
INFORMATION REASONABLY AVAILABLE AND WITHIN THEIR CONTROL - 5

Case 2:17-cv-01297-MJP Document 486 Filed 04/20/20 Page 6 of 6

1

Alternatively, as proposed by Washington, Defendants may stipulate that they will limit

2

their evidence at trial on the issues of lethality, deployability, unit cohesion, and budget

3

constraints to the information they identified in this motion as responsive to Washington’s

4

discovery requests.

5
6

Defendants shall produce the requested information or file their stipulation by May 8,
2020.

7
8

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

9

Dated April 20, 2020.

11

A

12

Marsha J. Pechman
Senior United States District Judge

10

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER ON LCR 37 JOINT DISCOVERY MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO SEEK AND PRODUCE
INFORMATION REASONABLY AVAILABLE AND WITHIN THEIR CONTROL - 6