Jerrels v. Department of Corrections et al

Filing 19

ORDER denying 14 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom.(CMG; cc to Plaintiff)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

5
6
7

HARVEY JERRELS,

8
9
10
11
12

Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
BELINDA STEWART, PAT GLEBE,
CATHY M. BAUM, ARNP, and CHARLES
JONES,

15
16

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL

Defendants.

13
14

No. C11-5712 BHS/KLS

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel. ECF No. 14. Defendants oppose the
motion on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to comply with FRCP 37(a) and because the discovery
Plaintiff seeks is addressed to the wrong defendant. ECF No. 15. Plaintiff replies that his

17
18

attempts to set up a telephone conference with defense counsel were ignored. ECF No. 17. The

19

Court anticipates that the parties will cooperate in good faith to resolve their discovery disputes

20

prior to seeking Court intervention. “A good faith effort to confer with a party or person not

21

making a disclosure or discovery requires a face-to-face meeting or a telephonic conference.”

22

Local Rule CR 37(a)(1)(A). Because it appears there is some dispute as to whether Plaintiff has

23

made some attempt to confer with Defendants prior to filing his motion to compel, the motion

24
will not be denied on the grounds that it is premature.
25
26

However, it is clear from Defendant Glebe’s responses to Plaintiff’s discovery that he
does not have possession of or personal access to the records that Plaintiff seeks. It is also clear
ORDER - 1

1

that the records Plaintiff seeks are in the possession of the Department of Corrections, which is

2

also named as a party in this lawsuit. Thus, Plaintiff need only correctly address his discovery to

3

the Department of Corrections so that the Department of Corrections can respond. Although

4

Plaintiff may believe that Defendant Glebe “has the legal right and ability to access said

5
documents”, there is no evidence before the Court that this is so. There is no evidence that
6
7
8
9

Defendant Glebe has responded to the discovery in bad faith and in fact, it appears that he has
cooperated with Plaintiff in alerting him to where the discovery may be found.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

10

(1)

Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 14) is DENIED.

11

(2)

The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants.

12
13
DATED this 27th day of January, 2012.
14

A

15
16

Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER - 2