Asanachescu et al v. Clark County et al

Filing 59

ORDER denying 49 Motion for Disclosure by Judge Benjamin H Settle.(TG)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

5
6

7 AFRODITA ASANACHESCU, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL

v.

9

CASE NO. C13-5222 BHS

10 CLARK COUNTY, et. al.,
Defendants.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel the disclosure
of insurance agreements from ten of the Defendants (“Defendants”) (Dkt. 49). The
Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and
the remainder of the file and hereby denies the motion for the reasons stated herein.
On August 22, 2013, Plaintiffs made a motion to compel the disclosure of
insurance agreements in compliance with initial disclosure requirements. Dkt. 49.
Plaintiffs’ motion emphasizes the importance of these agreements, especially with regard
to their upcoming November 13, 2013 mediation and settlement proposals. Id. at 3.
On August 30, 2013, Defendants responded, arguing that Plaintiffs’ motion was
unnecessary. Dkt. 51. Defendants indicate, through citation to Plaintiffs’ own materials

ORDER - 1

1 submitted with their motion to compel, that they have communicated with Plaintiffs’
2 counsel and have conveyed that they have no intention of withholding discoverable
3 insurance information. Id. at 2. In his response, defense counsel represents that he has
4 assured Plaintiffs’ counsel that this information will be provided to the plaintiffs. Id. In
5 fact, Defendants indicate that they “have sent the plaintiffs all discoverable insurance
6 documentation they have received from individually named Conmed, Inc. defendants.”
7 Id. Additionally, Defendants state that they anticipate receipt of the remaining insurance
8 information in the “very near future” and will provide it to Plaintiffs. Id. at 2-3.
9

Plaintiffs did not reply to Defendants response. Thus, the Court presumes that the

10 Plaintiffs do not dispute Defendants’ representations on this matter and that any delay in
11 disclosure, up to this point, has not prejudiced Plaintiffs. Given that Defendants appear
12 to be attempting in good faith to comply with the necessary disclosure of the insurance
13 agreements, the Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiffs’ motion to compel (Dkt.
14 49). If the production of the insurance agreements is considered insufficient or otherwise
15 sanctionable, then Plaintiffs may renew their motion.
16

Dated this 12th day of September, 2013.

A

17
18

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22

ORDER - 2