Nguyen v. Mercer Island Boys Basketball Booster Club

Filing 24

AMENDED ORDER granting in part Defendants' 23 11 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (MJV) Modified link to 11 MOTION on 3/11/2025 (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. 2:24-cv-01990-RSL

9
10
11
12
13

Plaintiffs,
v.
MERCER ISLAND BOYS BASKETBALL
BOOSTER CLUB,
Defendant.

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN
PART MIBBBC’S AND DISMISSED
INDIVIDUALS’ MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER

14
15

This matter comes before the Court on “Defendant MIBBBC’s and Dismissed

16

Individuals’ Motion for Protective Order.” Dkt. # 11. Mercer Island Boys Basketball

17

Booster Club (“MIBBBC”) and three witnesses from whom discovery has been sought

18

request an order limiting the scope of discovery to information that is relevant to plaintiffs’

19

sole remaining claim, precluding service of interrogatories and/or requests for production

20

on non-party witnesses, preventing plaintiffs from serving additional written

21

interrogatories on MIBBBC without leave of Court, requiring that the depositions of the

22

non-party witnesses be conducted via Zoom, and awarding the reasonable attorney’s fees

23

and costs for bringing this motion.

24

The Court, having reviewed the memoranda, declarations, and exhibits submitted

25

by the parties, including plaintiffs’ unauthorized second opposition (Dkt. # 18) and

26

supplemental response (Dkt. # 19), finds as follows:
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN PART MIBBBC’S AND
DISMISSED INDIVIDUALS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER - 1

1
2
3
4

A. Scope of Discovery
The only remaining claim in this litigation is a defamation claim against MIBBBC.
All discovery in this case shall be aimed at – and limited to – that claim, which is based on
the following factual allegations:

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

In November of 2023, Issaquah Basketball Booster Club Coach Cornelius
Bomet contacted Plaintiff Elle Nguyen and informed her that [MIBBBC] had
contacted multiple Eastside Traveling League youth basketball teams around
the Eastside of Seattle and surrounding cities and falsely told their staff that
Plaintiff Elle Nguyen was disruptive at games, attending games without her
children present, and advised them not to allow her children to join their
teams.
Dkt. # 1 at ¶ 3.31. Discovery shall focus on the who, what, where, and when of the
allegedly defamatory statements, such as what Mr. Bomert and/or the Eastside Traveling
League teams were told, who at MIBBBC made the allegedly defamatory statements, what
the speaker(s) said, and when they said it. The parties may also conduct discovery to
determine whether the allegedly defamatory statements were true or otherwise privileged.
There is no reason to, and plaintiffs may not, delve into the decision(s) to exclude
A.A. and G.A. from the basketball teams, the events of August through October 2022, or
the damages arising therefrom. Plaintiffs were unable to allege facts sufficient to raise a
plausible inference that MIBBBC could be held liable for breach of a contract or promise,
negligence, intentionally or negligently inflicting emotional distress on plaintiffs, or
engaging in race-based discrimination in violation of federal or state law. Those claims
were all dismissed more than a year ago, Nguyen v. MIBBBC, No. 2:24-cv-00855-RSL,
Dkt. # 48 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 6, 2023), and any information gained from inquiring about
them would be irrelevant to the sole remaining defamation claim. Discovery regarding
these matters or events is beyond the scope of permissible discovery and is prohibited.

26
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN PART MIBBBC’S AND
DISMISSED INDIVIDUALS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER - 2

1

B. Discovery from Non-Party Witnesses

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

All claims against Rebecca Robinson, Karen Friedman, and Kelly Coochise have
been dismissed, Nguyen v. MIBBBC, No. 2:24-cv-00855-RSL, Dkt. # 48 (W.D. Wash.
Dec. 6, 2023), because plaintiffs were unable to allege any facts suggesting that these
individuals could be held liable under any of the theories asserted. When plaintiffs moved
to amend their complaint, they specifically dropped all claims against these individuals.
Dkt. # 52-1 (striking Ms. Robinson, Ms. Friedman, and Mr. Coochise from the caption and
deleting all claims asserted against them). The Court’s order granting leave to add a
defamation claim against MIBBBC in no way reinstated the previously dismissed claims
against these individuals. Because Ms. Robinson, Ms. Friedman, and Mr. Coochise are not
parties to this litigation, they are not subject to the discovery mechanisms that apply only
to parties, such as Fed. R. Civ. P. 33 and 34.

13

C. Limits on Interrogatories

14
15
16
17
18
19

“Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party may serve on any other
party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete subparts.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 33(a). On or about January 16, 2025, plaintiffs served on MIBBBC their first set of
discovery requests, consisting of 25 interrogatories and associated requests for production.
Dkt. # 12-1. Plaintiffs may not, therefore, serve any additional interrogatories without
leave of Court (or the written agreement of MIBBBC).

20

D. Depositions by Remote Means

21
22
23
24
25
26

Ms. Robinson, Ms. Friedman, and Mr. Coochise request that the Court exercise its
discretion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(4) to require that their depositions be taken by
remote means, namely via Zoom. The witnesses identify unpleasant and hostile
interactions they have had with plaintiff Elle Nguyen since the fall of 2022 and provide
copies of social media posts in which Ms. Nguyen publicly disparages or vaguely threatens
them.
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN PART MIBBBC’S AND
DISMISSED INDIVIDUALS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER - 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Plaintiffs oppose remote depositions on a number of grounds, each of which has
been considered by the Court. It is hereby ORDERED that the depositions of Ms.
Robinson, Ms. Friedman, and Mr. Coochise will be taken on Wednesday, March 26, 2025,
in Courtroom 15128 of the United States Courthouse, 700 Stewart Street, Seattle, WA
98101, in the presence of the undersigned. The first deposition will start at 1:30 pm, the
second at 2:00 pm, and the third at 2:30 pm. If the deposition date and/or times are not
convenient, the parties shall immediately contact the judicial assistant, Teri Roberts, at
206-370-8810 to reschedule.
In their reply memorandum, the movants request that the depositions of any
MIBBBC-affiliated individual be conducted by remote means. There is no evidence
regarding plaintiffs’ relationship or interactions with these unnamed individuals. The Court
declines to issue a blanket order requiring remote depositions.
E. Attorney’s Fees
The movants and plaintiffs have requested an award of attorney’s fees associated
with filing and responding to the motion for protective order. Rule 26(c) authorizes
motions for protective order and provides that Rule 37(a)(5) applies to an award of
expenses in that context. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(3). In general, Rule 37(a) provides that the
winning side in a discovery dispute is entitled to an award of the reasonable expenses
incurred in filing or opposing the discovery motion unless (a) the motion or response was
substantially justified or (b) other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.
Neither party prevailed with regards to the remote deposition issue, the Court
having adopted a compromise resolution. The movants are the prevailing parties with
regards to the other discovery disputes, however, and may be entitled to an award of fees
and costs on those issues. Plaintiffs’ request for an award of fees is DENIED.
In three important respects, plaintiffs’ positions were not reasonable or justified.
First, the scope of this litigation and discovery is limited to the defamation claim described
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN PART MIBBBC’S AND
DISMISSED INDIVIDUALS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER - 4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

in ¶ 3.31 of the Complaint. The Court has attempted to make that clear, and defense
counsel has consistently reiterated the limited scope of this litigation. Plaintiffs’ insistence
that they can continue to pursue discovery related to claims that have been dismissed under
the guise of “background” or “foundation” is erroneous and unreasonable. Second, the
Court dismissed all claims against Ms. Robinson, Ms. Friedman, and Mr. Coochise, and
plaintiffs’ proposed amended complaint expressly deleted them and all allegations against
them. These individuals are no longer defendants, no longer parties, and not subject to the
discovery mechanisms of Rules 33 and 34. Again, plaintiffs’ insistence on treating them as
defendants despite the procedural history of this case and their own proposed amendments
to the complaint is unjustified. Third, the very first subsection of Rule 33 clearly states that
only 25 interrogatories can be served on any other party. Plaintiffs have offered no
explanation or justification for their attempt to serve - and continued threats to serve - a
second set of interrogatories on MIBBBC that would exceed the specified limit.
Nevertheless, the Court declines to award fees against plaintiffs at this juncture in
light of “other circumstances.” While their positions on three of the four disputes at issue
in this motion were not substantially justified, plaintiffs are proceeding pro se and will be
given another chance to comply with the governing rules of civil procedure and the Court’s
prior orders. If plaintiffs continue to pursue irrelevant discovery regarding the dismissed
claims, continue to identify or treat Ms. Robinson, Ms. Friedman, and/or Mr. Coochise as
defendants, or serve additional interrogatories on MIBBBC without its agreement or the
Court’s permission, the reasonable fees associated with this motion for protective order
plus any additional fees incurred in curbing plaintiffs’ conduct will be awarded.

23
24
25
26
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN PART MIBBBC’S AND
DISMISSED INDIVIDUALS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER - 5

1
2

For all of the foregoing reasons, the motion for protective order (Dkt. # 11) is
GRANTED in part.

3
4

Dated this 11th day of March, 2025.

5
6
7

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN PART MIBBBC’S AND
DISMISSED INDIVIDUALS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER - 6