Hauck v. Walker et al

Filing 104

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H. Settle granting in part and denying in part 95 Motion for Sanctions; denying 98 Motion to Strike.(TG)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

4
5

CHRISTINE D. HAUCK,
6
7
8

CASE NO. C13-5729 BHS

Plaintiff,
v.
PHILLIP D. WALKER, et al.,
Defendants.

9

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO STRIKE AND
GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS AND MOTION TO
COMPEL

10
11

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Garry Lucas and Phillip

12

Walker’s (“Defendants”) motion for discovery sanctions and motion to compel

13

production of discovery responses (Dkt. 95); and Plaintiff Christine Hauck’s (“Hauck”)

14

motion to strike Defendants’ motion (Dkt. 98). The Court has considered the pleadings

15

filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and

16

hereby rules as follows:
I.

17
18
19
20
21

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 9, 2018, Defendants filed a motion requesting sanctions and an order
compelling Hauck to respond to certain discovery requests. Dkt. 95. On February 26,
2018, Hauck responded and moved to strike Defendants’ motion. Dkt. 98. On March 2,
2018, Defendants replied. Dkt. 99.

22

ORDER - 1

1
2

II. DISCUSSION
As a threshold matter, Hauck moves to strike Defendants’ motion asserting that

3

they failed to confer with her regarding the merits of the motion before filing the motion.

4

Dkt. 98 at 2. The Court disagrees because defense counsel certified in the motion that he

5

attempted to meet and confer and submitted an email to Hauck requesting a conference

6

on these discovery issues. Dkts. 96 at 2, 96-6 at 2. In response, Hauck fails to recognize

7

Defendants’ reference to the email or the email itself. Despite Hauck’s repeated

8

assertions that Defendants failed to meet and confer, the Court finds that Defendants have

9

submitted sufficient evidence to establish an attempt to meet and confer. Therefore, the

10

Court denies Hauck’s motion to strike.

11

Regarding the merits, Defendants have established that Hauck has repeatedly

12

failed to comply with her discovery obligations. The only remaining question is the

13

appropriate sanctions. Defendants request dismissal of Hauck’s claims for damages

14

relating to lost employment opportunities, reasonable attorney’s fees of $1,000 for time

15

spent on numerous motions relating to this discovery, and any other sanction that the

16

Court deems appropriate. Dkt. 95 at 9. First, the Court agrees that dismissal of Hauck’s

17

claims for lost employment opportunities and/or lost wages is appropriate. In fact, Hauck

18

declares that “she had not made a claim alleging any injury resulting in the loss of

19

earnings.” Dkt. 98-1 at 7. To the extent such a claim was included in Hauck’s

20

complaint, the claim is dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v) (court may dismiss

21

action in part).

22

ORDER - 2

1

Second, the Court agrees that minimal monetary sanctions are appropriate. The

2

Court has been extremely lenient on this issue and has even deferred ruling on monetary

3

sanctions multiple times. Defendants are entitled to some compensation for their

4

multiple attempts to receive adequate responses, especially in light of Hauck’s continued

5

defiance and refusal to even meet and confer to resolve these issues without formal

6

motions. Therefore, the Court awards Defendants $1,000 in reasonable expenses.

7

Finally, the Court finds that no other sanctions are appropriate at this time. If

8

Hauck attempts to rely on evidence at trial that was not properly produced during

9

discovery, then Defendants may request that the evidence be excluded. In light of the

10

facts of this proceeding and at this late of date, the Court finds that an order requiring

11

further production would be futile. Thus, the Court denies additional sanctions and

12

Defendants’ request for an order compelling overdue production.

13

III. ORDER

14

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for discovery

15

sanctions and motion to compel production of discovery responses (Dkt. 95) is

16

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as stated herein and Hauck’s motion to strike

17

(Dkt. 98) is DENIED.

18

Dated this 4th day of April, 2018.

A

19
20

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

21
22

ORDER - 3