Kingston v. International Business Machines Corporation

Filing 66

ORDER ON #42 MOTION COMPEL. The Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel and ORDERS IBM to produce the document subject to the Protective Order in this case. Separately, the Court notes that in ruling on Plaintiff's Discovery Motions, it did not specifically address Plaintiff's request for fees and costs in bringing his two discovery motions. (Dkt. Nos. #40 & #42 .) The Court does not find that the requests are merited on the record before it because the opposition as to both was substantially justified. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5) (A). The Court DENIES both requests. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM)

Case 2:19-cv-01488-MJP Document 66 Filed 01/08/21 Page 1 of 2

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

8
9
10

SCOTT KINGSTON,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

CASE NO. C19-1488 MJP
ORDER ON MOTION COMPEL

v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,

14
Defendant.
15
16
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 42), on
17
which the Court previously reserved ruling pending an in camera review of the document at
18
issue, see Order on Discovery Motions (Dkt. No. 53). The Court has now received and reviewed
19
a copy of the document—a settlement agreement between Jerome Beard and IBM. The Court
20
finds that the agreement contains information about unpaid commissions that is relevant to
21

Plaintiff’s claims in this case. The Court GRANTS the Motion to Compel and ORDERS IBM to

22
produce the document subject to the Protective Order in this case. But the Court does not find
23

relevant the amounts paid to settle Beard’s discrimination claims and non-economic damages or

24

ORDER ON MOTION COMPEL - 1

Case 2:19-cv-01488-MJP Document 66 Filed 01/08/21 Page 2 of 2

1

the amount paid for attorneys’ fees and costs. IBM may redact these amounts in the version

2

produced to Plaintiff.

3

Separately, the Court notes that in ruling on Plaintiff’s Discovery Motions, it did not

4

specifically address Plaintiff’s request for fees and costs in bringing his two discovery motions.

5

(Dkt. Nos. 40 & 42.) The Court does not find that the requests are merited on the record before it

6

because the opposition as to both was substantially justified. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). The

7

Court DENIES both requests.

8

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

9

Dated January 8, 2021.

10

A

11

Marsha J. Pechman
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER ON MOTION COMPEL - 2