Collins v. American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida

Filing 12

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 10 LCR 37 Joint Submission. The Court DENIES the LCR 37 "Joint" Submission (Dkt. No. 10 ) without prejudice. Signed by U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour. (KRA)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

SHANE COLLINS,

10
v.

11
12
13

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER

Defendant.

15

17

Plaintiff,

AMERICAN BANKERS INSURANCE
COMPANY OF FLORIDA,

14

16

CASE NO. C23-1959-JCC

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s LCR 37 Joint Submission (Dkt. No. 10).
Having considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court hereby DENIES the
motion for the reasons explained herein.

I.

BACKGROUND
This is an insurance coverage action wherein Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached its

flood insurance policy by paying less than what Plaintiff asserts was the appropriate coverage
amount under the policy. (Dkt. No. 10 at 2.) The instant discovery dispute arises out of Plaintiff’s
first set of interrogatories and first requests for production, which Plaintiff sent to Defendant on
May 1, 2024, and to which Defendant responded on May 31, 2024. (Id.) On July 2, 2024, Plaintiff
sought to initiate a Local Civil Rule 37 conference to discuss resolution of certain disputed items.
(See Dkt. No. 11 at 27.) The parties met on July 9, 2024. (Dkt. No. 10 at 1.) On July 26, 2024,

ORDER
C23-1959-JCC
PAGE - 1

1

Defendant sent Plaintiff a letter in response to the July 9, 2024, conference articulating Defendant’s

2

position on certain discovery requests and agreeing to supplement its production where possible.

3

(See Dkt. No. 11 at 33–35.)

4

Nevertheless, on July 31, 2024, Plaintiff emailed Defendant with “the final version of the

5

LCR 37 Joint Submission . . . plaintiff plans to file tomorrow.” (Id. at 52–53.) Not 10 minutes

6

later, Defendant responded: “I don’t understand why this would go to the court.” (Id. at 52.)

7

Defendant further noted that it “only now learned that you were unsatisfied with our supplemental

8

responses” and would “find out tomorrow what else we can do,” but still “[did not] see the point

9

of asking the Court for relief.” (Id.) On August 2, 2024, Plaintiff informed Defendant that it was

10

planning to “move forward with filing the LCR 37 Joint Submission today,” (id. at 51), and

11

proceeded to file on August 12, 2024, (see generally Dkt. No. 10). The record does not otherwise

12

demonstrate an impasse, any subsequent conferral or attempt to confer, or any agreement in filing

13

the LCR 37 Joint Submission. (See generally id.)

14

II.

DISCUSSION

15

A.

Legal Standard

16

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any

17

party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). If

18

requested discovery is withheld inappropriately or goes unanswered, the requesting party may

19

move to compel such discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). The Court also has broad discretion to

20

decide whether to compel discovery. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307

21

F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002).

22

B.

23

A party filing a motion to compel under Local Rule 37 may do so unilaterally or jointly.

24

See generally LCR 37. The joint option follows an expedited procedure and affords parties the

25

benefit of same day noting. LCR 37(a)(2). Importantly, the parties must affirmatively agree to

26

utilize the expedited procedure. See id. (“Alternatively, the parties may, by agreement, utilize the
ORDER
C23-1959-JCC
PAGE - 2

Rule 37

1

expedited procedure set forth in this subsection.”) (emphasis added). If the parties agree, the

2

movant must, after the conference, provide a draft of its joint motion to opposing counsel and await

3

a response for seven days. LCR 37(a)(2)(C). The moving party may file its motion and note no

4

response was received if its draft goes unanswered. Id.

5

The motion must include a certification that the moving party has “in good faith conferred

6

or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort

7

to resolve the dispute without court action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). The certification requirement

8

is more than a “formalistic prerequisite” to judicial resolution. Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Bands, Inc.,

9

141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015). It must certify that the conferral attempt resulted in

10

an impasse, which ensures that the parties have exhausted their attempts to resolve their dispute

11

before seeking the Court’s intervention. See Beasley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2014 WL

12

1268709, slip op. at 1 (W.D. Wash. 2014) (“A good faith effort to resolve discovery disputes

13

requires an exchange of information until no additional progress is possible.”).

14

C.

15

Here, there is no indication that the parties agreed to file the LCR 37 Joint Submission.

16

(See generally Dkt. No. 10.) In fact, based on the record, it appears Plaintiff has entirely neglected

17

the expedited procedure detailed in Local Rule 37 and proceeded without affirmative agreement

18

from Defendant. Rather than share an initial draft with Defendant and allow Defendant seven days

19

to insert its rebuttal, see LCR 37(a)(2)(B)–(C), Plaintiff instead sent a final draft on July 31, 2024,

20

(see Dkt. No. 11 at 52), and then only gave Defendant two days to respond, (see id. at 51). To be

21

sure, Plaintiff ultimately filed the motion 12 days after it sent Defendant the “final” draft. (See

22

generally Dkt. No. 10) (motion filed on August 12, 2024). However, the Court has no way of

23

knowing if the parties agreed to—or even complied with—LCR 37’s procedural requirements in

24

the meantime because the only record of discussion between the parties specifically regarding the

25

motion is that which took place between July 31 and August 2, 2024. (See Dkt. No. 11 at 51–55.)

26

Moreover, after receiving the purported final draft from Plaintiff, Defendant continued to question
ORDER
C23-1959-JCC
PAGE - 3

Plaintiff’s “Joint” Submission

1

the need for a joint motion. (See id. at 51) (Defendant “[did not] see the point of asking the Court

2

for relief.”). The fact that Defendant questioned the need for a joint motion even after Plaintiff

3

shared the purported final draft further demonstrates the lack of agreement.

4

There is also no indication that the parties were at an impasse when Plaintiff filed the

5

“joint” motion. As of both Defendant’s July 26, 2024, letter, (see id. at 33–35), and the July 31,

6

2024, email exchange between the parties (see id. at 51), Defendant remained open to

7

supplementing its productions—thus dispelling any notion of impasse. And although the parties

8

met on July 9, 2024, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the parties had exhausted their

9

attempts to resolve the dispute at this meeting. (See generally id.) Indeed, post-conference

10

communications show that the parties agreed and expected that Defendant would continue to

11

supplement its discovery responses. (See id. at 33–35, 51.) Ongoing discussions after an LCR 37

12

conference preclude a finding that no additional progress was possible. Defendant also provided

13

Plaintiff with at least one supplemental production between the July 9, 2024, conference and the

14

day Plaintiff filed the motion. (Id. at 53.) The post-conference communications and supplemental

15

production show the parties had not––and have not––reached an impasse justifying the Court’s

16

intervention. As such, the Court concludes that the parties have not met the meet and confer

17

certification requirements of Rule 37.

18

III.

19
20
21

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the LCR 37 “Joint” Submission (Dkt. No.

10) without prejudice.
DATED this 29th day of August 2024.

A

22
23
24

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
ORDER
C23-1959-JCC
PAGE - 4