Johnson et al v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company

Filing 83

ORDER denying 66 Defendant's Motion for Protective Order by Judge Karen L Strombom. The Defendant shall file its brief as to why expenses and fees should not be imposed on or before November 7, 2014. The Plaintiff shall file its brief in support of expenses and fees on or before November 14, 2014. The Clerk shall note the matter of the Plaintiffs Motion for Expenses and Fees (Dkt. 81) on the calendar for November 14, 2014.(TW)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10
11
12

DEBORAH JOHNSON, a single person;
SHELBY JOHNSON-ROWELL, a single
person; and AFALLON PETTIJOHN and
BENJAMIN PETTIJOHN, a marital
community,

13
14
15
16

CASE NO. C 14-5064 KLS
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
d/b/a ALLSTATE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a foreign corporation,

17
Defendant.
18
19
20

Allstate filed a Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. 66) requesting an order “prohibiting

21 depositions of, discovery to, and questions regarding Allstate employees named and/or
22 mentioned subsequent to Plaintiffs’ filing of the IFCA notice on November 7, 2013” on the
23 grounds that such discovery is irrelevant. The Plaintiffs oppose the motion.
24

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER-

1

1

LAW

2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) permits any party or person from whom discovery is sought to

3 move for a protective order.
4

DISCUSSION

5

The Defendant is seeking a protective order to prevent depositions or discovery from

6 certain unidentified employees of Allstate and from whom no discovery is currently being
7 sought.
8

While the parties raise several arguments in favor of and in opposition to the motion, the

9 Court is focused on the fact that the Plaintiffs are not, at this time, seeking any discovery from
10 the individuals for whom Allstate seeks protection. The Court interprets Rule 26(c) as having a
11 threshold requirement that “discovery is sought” from the person or party seeking the protective
12 order. That is currently not the case. It is only when discovery is being sought from a person or
13 party that the court would then be in a position to assess whether there is good cause for the
14 motion for protective order and what, if any, limitations on discovery should be imposed.
15

Due to the fact that discovery is not being sought from any of the unidentified

16 individuals, the motion for protective order is DENIED.
17
18

SANCTIONS
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(3) references Rule 37(a)(5) for the determination as to whether an

19 award of expenses should be made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(B) is applicable inasmuch as the
20 Court denied the Defendant’s motion for a protective order:
21
22
23

If the motion is denied, the court . . . must, after giving an opportunity to be
heard, require the movant, the attorney filing the motion, or both to pay the
party or deponent who opposed the motion its reasonable expenses incurred
in opposing the motion, including attorney’s fees. But the court must not
order this payment if the motion was substantially justified or other
circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.

24

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER-

2

1

In light of the Rule 37(a)(5)(B)’s directive, the Court is ordering the Defendant to file a

2 brief setting forth its position as to why expenses and fees should not be imposed on or before
3 November 7, 2014. Plaintiff may file its brief in support of an award of expenses and fees on or
4 before November 14, 2014. The Plaintiff does not have to include any information regarding the
5 amount of expenses and fees being requested at this time. The matter will be noted for decision
6 on November 14, 2014.
7

CONCLUSION

8

The Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. 66) is DENIED.

9

The Defendant shall file its brief as to why expenses and fees should not be imposed on

10 or before November 7, 2014. The Plaintiff shall file its brief in support of expenses and fees on
11 or before November 14, 2014. The Clerk shall note the matter of the Plaintiff’s Motion for
12 Expenses and Fees (Dkt. 81) on the calendar for November 14, 2014.
13

DATED this 27th day of October, 2014.

14

A

15

Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER-

3