Nguyen et al v. Mercer Island Boys Basketball Booster Club et al
Filing
110
ORDER denying Defendant's 73 Motion to Compel as moot, denying request for attorney's fees, and denying 108 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (MJV)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
6
7
8
ELLE NGUYEN, et al.,
CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00855-RSL
9
10
11
12
13
Plaintiffs,
v.
MERCER ISLAND BOYS BASKETBALL
BOOSTER CLUB, et al.,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL AS MOOT, DENYING
REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S
FEES, AND DENYING MOTION TO
STRIKE
Defendants.
14
15
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Boys & Girls Club of King
16
County and Marc Munson’s “Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from Plaintiffs and
17
for Attorneys [sic] Fees” (Dkt. # 73) and “Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ New Response on
18
Defendants’ Motion to Compel Discovery and Document Production” (Dkt. # 108).
19
Defendants served their first set of discovery requests on February 16, 2024.
20
Plaintiffs obtained a 30-day extension of the time in which to respond, but did not serve
21
their initial, incomplete responses until May 14, 2024. The responses were supplemented,
22
as agreed by the parties, on May 24, 2024. Defendants identified various deficiencies in
23
the production and wrote a letter, dated May 31, 2024, requesting further supplementation
24
by June 14, 2024. Dkt. # 76-4. Although plaintiffs apparently agreed that some
25
supplementation was necessary and said they would endeavor to do so by June 21, 2024,
26
they did not supplement their responses until July 2, 2024, a day after this motion to
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL AS MOOT,
DENYING REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, AND
DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE - 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
compel was filed. Defendants agree that plaintiffs have now satisfied their discovery
obligations with respect to the first set of discovery requests, but nevertheless seek an
award of fees and costs under Rule 37(b)(2).
Rule 37(b)(2) is clearly inapplicable: there was no “order to provide or permit
discovery” with which plaintiffs failed to comply. In the absence of a prior court order,
Rule 37(a)(5) governs a request for fees and costs. While an award may be appropriate
under that subparagraph if the requested discovery is provided after a motion to compel is
filed, fees and costs cannot be awarded if (i) the motion was filed without making a good
faith attempt to obtain the disclosure without court involvement, (ii) the nondisclosure was
substantially justified, and/or (iii) the circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.
The Court in no way condones delaying full and complete discovery responses for
more than three and a half months past the due date, but notes that the parties agreed to
certain extensions of time and were in discussions regarding the dates of production
throughout that period. While defendants’ frustration with plaintiffs’ inability to follow
through on any of their commitments is evident and understandable, this motion to compel
was filed only two weeks after plaintiffs failed to meet a deadline for supplementation that
defendants had unilaterally set. In addition, counsel’s response to the motion to compel
reveals that the relationship between her and her clients was already fraying at the time,
further complicating efforts to supplement in a timely manner. See Dkt. # 75 at 4.
20
21
//
22
23
//
24
25
26
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL AS MOOT,
DENYING REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, AND
DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE - 2
1
2
3
4
Having reviewed the submissions of the parties (including Ms. Nguyen’s assertions
in Dkt. # 105 at 2), the Court finds that an award of fees and costs would be unjust in the
circumstances presented here. Defendants’ motion to compel is denied as moot, their
request for an award of fees and costs is denied, and the motion to strike is denied.
5
6
7
Dated this 24th day of October, 2024.
8
9
10
Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL AS MOOT,
DENYING REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES, AND
DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE - 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?