Wilson v. PTT, LLC

Filing 213

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 186 Motion to Compel. Defendant shall complete production of all documents responsive to RFP No. 67 within twenty-one (21) days of this Order. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (LH)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

5
6
7
8

Plaintiff,

9
10
11

Cause No. C18-5275RSL

SEAN WILSON,

ORDER

v.
PTT, LLC,
Defendant.

12
13
14

This matter comes before the Court on the “Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel re: RFP No.

15 67.” Dkt. # 186. Having reviewed the memoranda, declarations, and exhibits submitted by the
16

parties, the Court finds as follows:

17
18

Plaintiff has alleged both per se and direct violations of the Washington Consumer

19 Protection Act, a fact recognized by the Court when granting class certification and denying
20

preliminary injunctive relief. See Dkt. # 170 at 6 (identifying common issues related to both

21
22

types of CPA claims) and 15 (recognizing plaintiff’s claim that defendant’s conduct is “unfair”

23 because it targets consumers who have displayed addictive tendencies). Plaintiff has not waived
23
25
26
27
28
ORDER - 1

1 a direct claim under the CPA simply by asserting a companion per se claim, nor is he estopped
2

from pursuing such a claim.1

3
4
5
6

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED. Defendant
shall complete production of all documents responsive to RFP No. 67 within twenty-one (21)

7
8

days of this Order.

9
10

Dated this 31st day of January, 2023.

11
12
Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
23
25
26
27

1

Even if the certified class includes individuals who do not claim to be addicted, the entire class
was
subjected
to the same “unfair” act or practice. At the very least, plaintiff would be entitled to the
28
requested discovery in order to pursue his own claim of unfair targeting.
ORDER - 2