Crofts et al v. Issaquah School District et al

Filing 43

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 30 Motion to Compel signed by Judge Richard A Jones. (TH)

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8

LAYNA CROFTS and JEREMY SANDERS,

9
10
11

Plaintiffs,
CASE NO. C17-1365RAJ
v.
ORDER
ISSAQUAH SCHOOL DISTRICT,

12

Defendant.

13
14
15

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Compel.

16
Dkt. # 30. Defendant Issaquah School District opposes the Motion. Dkt. # 31. For the
17
18

reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. Dkt. # 30.

19

II. BACKGROUND

20
21

Plaintiffs Layna Crofts and Jeremy Sanders, proceeding pro se, seek judicial

22

review of the final order of an administrative law judge pursuant to the Individuals with

23

Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. (“IDEA”). Dkt. # 6. Plaintiffs filed

24

their first motion to compel on October 24, 2017. Dkt. # 13. Plaintiffs’ motion was

25
26

denied with leave to refile because Plaintiffs failed to comply with the meet-and-confer

27
28

ORDER – 1

1

requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) and Local Rule 37(a)(1).

2

Dkt. # 17. On January 2, 2018, Plaintiffs filed this Second Motion to Compel. Dkt. # 30.

3

III. DISCUSSION

4
5

Plaintiffs ask the Court to compel Defendants to respond to interrogatories
directed to Issaquah School District, Ron Thiele, and Melissa Madsen. Plaintiffs also ask

6
7

the Court to issue an order allowing Plaintiffs to serve interrogatories on each of the

8

current Issaquah School Board Members. Dkt. # 30. To the extent that Plaintiffs ask the

9

Court to compel Ron Thiele and Melissa Madsen to respond to interrogatories, Plaintiff’s

10

Motion is DENIED. Pursuant to the Court’s Order issued on March 28, 2018, Ron

11
12

Thiele and Melissa Madsen have been dismissed as individual defendants in this matter.

13

Dkt. # 28. As they are no longer named parties to this action, the Court will not compel

14

them to answer Plaintiffs’ interrogatories. Further, to the extent that Plaintiffs’ Motion

15

requests that the Court rule that they may serve interrogatories on any persons that are not

16
17
18
19
20

a named party to this action, it is DENIED pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
33.
The Court will reiterate that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1) and Local
Rule 37(a)(1) require that a motion to compel discovery include a certification that the

21
22

movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing

23

to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action. Fed. R. Civ.

24

P. 37(a)(1). W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 37(a)(1). The Federal and Local Rules have this

25

requirement to minimize waste of judicial time and resources on issues that could be

26
27
28

resolved amongst the parties. Plaintiffs provide no such certification in their Motion and
ORDER – 2

1

have failed to comply with the meet-and-confer requirements of both the Federal and

2

Local rules. Failure to comply with these requirements are grounds for denial without

3

addressing the merits of the dispute. LCR 37(a)(1).

4

Defendant Issaquah School District represents that it repeatedly asked to meet and

5
6

confer with Plaintiffs to discuss ongoing discovery issues, but that Plaintiffs refused to

7

confer by telephone, restricting all communications to email. Defendant also represents

8

that it attempted to discuss the scope of Plaintiffs’ discovery requests and its objections to

9

those requests with Plaintiffs on several occasions but Plaintiffs refused, instead asking

10
11

Defendant to provide written questions regarding the requests. Defendant eventually

12

provided responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests and reiterated that it would be willing

13

to meet and confer to discuss these responses. Plaintiffs did not attempt to meet and

14

confer with Defendant and instead filed this Motion to Compel. As Plaintiffs have failed

15
16

to comply with the meet-and-confer requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

17

37(a)(1) and LCR 37(a)(1), Plaintiffs’ motion to compel responses to discovery requests

18

sent to Defendant Issaquah School District is DENIED.

19

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel.

20
21
22

Dkt. # 30.
DATED this 30th day of March, 2018.

23
24

A

25
26

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

27
28

ORDER – 3