Burleson v. Security Properties Residential, LLC et al

Filing 123

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 118 Motion to Compel and for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(MW)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6
7

SHARON ELAINE BURLESON,

8

Plaintiff,

9

v.

10
11

SECURITY PROPERTIES
RESIDENTIAL, LLC, et al.,

12

CASE NO. C18-0513RSL1
ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL AND FOR
SANCTIONS

Defendants.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Motion to Compel Discovery
and for Sanctions.” Dkt. # 122. Plaintiff argues, without providing a copy of the
discovery requests or defendant’s responses, that defendant Security Properties
Residential, LLC, provided evasive, incomplete, and general responses to nineteen
interrogatories. Because plaintiff did not make a good faith effort to confer with
defendant regarding this dispute prior to filing its motion, the motion to compel is
DENIED.
The meet and confer requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) and Local Civil

22
23
24
25
26

1

Plaintiff is requested to use a form of caption that is similar to the one included in this
order, which takes up half a page and provides all of the information necessary for the parties
and Court staff. It is not necessary to separately identify each party, to state whether a jury trial
has been requested, and to provide the jurisdictional basis for the suit in each filing.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

1

Rule 37(a)(1)(A) are imposed for the benefit of the Court and the parties. They are

2

intended to ensure that parties have an inexpensive and expeditious opportunity to

3

resolve discovery disputes and that only genuine disagreements are brought before the

4

Court. In the circumstances presented here, compliance with the Rule would have

5

involved face-to-face or telephonic communications regarding the relevance of the

6

information plaintiff requests (i.e., why she needs the information to prove her Fair

7

Housing Act claim) and the nature of and justifications for defendant’s objections. That

8

did not happen. In filing this motion, plaintiff relied on an email demanding

9

supplementation and putting the onus on defendant to contact her if defendant thought

10

further discussion would be helpful. This is plainly insufficient. Plaintiff, as the moving

11

party, must confirm that the parties have reached an impasse on every issue that is

12

brought before the Court. Inquiring whether defendant would like to continue discussing

13

perceived shortcomings in the production and threatening - then filing - a motion to

14

compel cuts short any opportunity the parties had to resolve this dispute without Court

15

intervention. The motion to compel is therefore DENIED.2

16
17

Dated this 19th day of June, 2020.

A

18

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2

Plaintiff’s request for sanctions under Rule 11 is denied as procedurally improper and
substantively unsupported.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION

-2-