Scott v. Cunningham

Filing 282

ORDER denying 217 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom.(CMG; cc to Plaintiff)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

4
5

RICHARD ROY SCOTT,
6
Plaintiff,

7
8

No. C11-5509 BHS/KLS

v.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL (ECF NO. 217)

KELLY CUNNINGHAM,

9
Defendant.
10
Before the Court is Plaintiff Richard Roy Scott’s second motion to compel regarding the

11
12

production of e-mails regarding Becky Denny. ECF No. 217. Mr. Scott filed this Motion on

13

February 27, 2012, asking this Court to compel the defendant to produce un-redacted copies of e-

14

mails involving Becky Denny that the Defendant had sent to Mr. Scott in response to his

15

discovery request. ECF No. 217, at 1. He filed this motion only twelve days after he filed his

16

“ Motion to Compel, ECF No. 208, on February 15, 2012. In ECF No. 208, Mr. Scott asked
2nd
”

17
18

this Court to compel the production of previously produced e-mails from Becky Denny in un-

19

redacted form. ECF No. 208, at 1. This Court denied that motion and another motion to compel

20

at ECF No. 143 because Mr. Scott failed to confer with opposing counsel and include a

21

certification in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) and Local Rule CR 37(a)(1)(A) prior to

22

filing the motions. The Court also admonished Mr. Scott that he is prohibited from filing

23

duplicative or repetitive motions. ECF No. 240. Scott v. Seling, C04-5147RJB, ECF No. 170. ¶

24
6.
25
26
ORDER - 1

1

With regard to this motion, Mr. Scott also failed to comply with Court rules requiring that

2

he first confer with opposing counsel prior to filing his motion to compel. Although Mr. Scott

3

called counsel for Defendant to discuss redactions to the e-mails involving Becky Denny, Mr.

4

Scott hung-up the telephone when counsel inquired about the specific e-mails to which Mr. Scott

5
was referring. Thus, the parties never completed their discovery conference. ECF No. 244
6
7

(Declaration of Stephen S. Manning (Manning Decl.). After the telephone call, counsel for

8

Defendant wrote a letter to Mr. Scott in which he stated that he is unable to discuss Mr. Scott’s

9

concerns unless Mr. Scott first identifies those e-mails that concern him. Counsel also provided

10

Mr. Scott with an updated privilege log which contains bates stamp numbers of the e-mails

11

produced to Mr. Scott. ECF No. 244 (Manning Decl.), Attachment A. Mr. Scott did not respond

12

to the letter.

13
Because Mr. Scott has failed to confer in good faith with counsel for Defendant regarding
14
15

this discovery issue, his motion to compel will be denied. Defendant argues in the alternative

16

that the Court may deny the motion to compel because the e-mails may be redacted as they

17

involve attorney client privileged communication, the work product doctrine and/or non-

18

responsive documents pertaining to another SCC resident. ECF No. 243, at 3. However, the

19

Court does not have the e-mails before it and cannot rule on the merits of any objections to their

20

production.

21
22

Defendant further requests that in accordance with the case management orders of Scott

23

v. Seling, that Mr. Scott receive monetary sanctions as a result of this duplicative motion and that

24

this case be dismissed. ECF No. 243. The Court has recommended that Mr. Scott be sanctioned

25

for filing duplicative motions and if he fails to pay the sanction that this action be dismissed. See

26
ORDER - 2

1

ECF No. 248. At this time, therefore, the Court will not recommend sanctions on the basis of

2

this latest duplicative motion to compel.

3
4

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
(1)

Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 217) is DENIED.

(2)

The Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and to counsel

5
6
7
8

for Defendants.

DATED this 30th day of April, 2012.

9

A

10

Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER - 3