United States of America v. Barber et al

Filing 59

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H. Settle granting 42 Motion to Compel; denying 43 Motion for Protective Order.(TG)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 6 7 8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 LINDA BARBER, et al., 12 Defendants. CASE NO. C13-5539 BHS ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL, DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, AND AWARDING DISCOVERY FEES 13 14 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff United States of America’s 15 (“Government”) motion to compel (Dkt. 42) and Defendants Bert Barber, Linda Barber, 16 and Lori Thompson’s (“Defendants”) motion for protective order (Dkt. 43). The Court 17 has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motions and the 18 remainder of the file and hereby grants the motion to compel, denies the motion for 19 protective order, and grants discovery fees for the reasons stated herein. I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 20 21 On July 1, 2013, the Government, on behalf of Diana Alton, filed a complaint 22 against Defendants seeking enforcement of the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601, et ORDER - 1 1 seq. (“FHA”). Dkt. 1. Relevant to the instant motions, the Government alleges that 2 Defendants have engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of 3 rights granted by the FHA. Id. ¶ 49(a). 4 On April 25, 2014, the Government filed a motion to compel (Dkt. 42) and 5 Defendants filed a motion for protective order (Dkt. 43). On May 7, 2014, the 6 Government responded. Dkt. 45. On May 9, 2014, Defendants replied. Dkt. 46. On 7 May 12, 2014, Defendants responded to the Government’s motion. Dkt. 48. On May 15, 8 2014, the Government replied. Dkt. 51. 9 II. DISCUSSION 10 “Unless otherwise limited by court order, . . . [p]arties may obtain discovery 11 regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense . . . .” 12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the 13 discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” 14 Id. 15 In this case, the parties dispute the extent of discovery that the Government may 16 have with regard to the allegation of Defendants engaging in a pattern or practice of 17 illegal conduct. Tenant files created from May 2008 through December 2012 are 18 discoverable information because they could reasonably lead to the discovery of 19 admissible evidence on the issue of a pattern or practice of behavior. Therefore, the 20 Court grants the Government’s motion to compel. 21 In the event that the Court granted the motion to compel, Defendants request that 22 the Court order the Government to pay for the costs of producing these tenant files. Dkt. ORDER - 2 1 46 at 5. The Government contends that it has offered to pay the costs of production. Dkt. 2 45 at 12. Because the parties agree on this issue, the Court awards fees in any amount up 3 to $3500 for the production of the client files and Defendants’ review. Any request for 4 fees and/or costs exceeding this amount, shall be requested by motion and supported by 5 detailed records. 6 7 III. ORDER Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that the Government’s motion to compel (Dkt. 8 42) is GRANTED, Defendants’ motion for protective order (Dkt. 43) is DENIED, and 9 Defendants are awarded up to $3500 for the costs and fees associated with producing the 10 requested materials. 11 Dated this 17th day of June, 2014. A 12 13 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER - 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?