Wilson v. PTT, LLC

Filing 245

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 232 Motion to Compel. Defendant shall, within fourteen days of the date of this Order, (a) supplement its responses to RFP Nos. 13, 16, 17, and 49 and (b) certify that it has completed good faith searches in response to the initial requests for production, as compelled by the Court, and/or as agreed during the meet and confer process and that it has produced all responsive documents. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (MJV)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8

RICK LARSEN,
CASE NO. 3:18-cv-05275-RSL

9

Plaintiff,
v.

10
11

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL

PTT, LLC,

12

Defendant.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

This matter comes before the Court on “Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Documents
Responsive to Sixteen Requests.” Dkt. # 232. Only four of the sixteen discovery requests
remain at issue following defendant’s November 22nd supplemental production. Plaintiff
also seeks an order compelling defendant to certify that it has conducted a good faith
search in response to plaintiff’s requests for production and has produced all responsive
documents.
A. Request for Production No. 13
Plaintiff seeks all written research regarding High 5 Casino that was conducted by
or for defendant and includes specific words or phrases related to gaming or gambling
addiction. Defendant argues that the motion to compel a response to this RFP should be
denied because plaintiff failed to meet and confer on this request, defendant searched for

26
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL - 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

and produced addiction-related documents in response to a different RFP, and no
responsive research was conducted.
The parties conducted a meet and confer regarding RFP 13 in 2019, and defendant
sent a letter indicating that it was standing on its objections. Plaintiff reached out again on
November 8, 2023, to see if defendant would commit to completing production of
responsive documents by December 1st: otherwise, plaintiff would assume the parties
remain at an impasse and file a motion to compel by the November 9 th deadline. Dkt.
# 233-8 at 3. Defendant promised to be in touch the following week and noted that it was
“waiting on updates” from plaintiff. Dkt. # 233-8 at 2. Having already met and conferred
regarding RFP 13, having no indication that defendants had changed its mind or
supplemented its response, and facing an imminent case management deadline, plaintiff
properly raised the issue in a motion to compel.
RFP 67, a discovery request to which defendant was compelled to respond by order
dated January 31, 2023, is not co-extensive with RFP 13. RFP 67 sought the production of
addiction-related documents sent by or to fifteen records custodians. RFP 13, on the other
hand, is not limited by sender/recipient and would apply to third-party research conducted
for defendant. A response to RFP 67 is not, therefore, an acceptable substitute for a
response to RFP 13.
With regards to Mr. Weiner’s assertion that “[n]o research was conducted that
would be responsive to RFP No. 13,” Dkt. # 234-1 at ¶ 4, the basis for the statement is
unclear. Mr. Weiner is defendant’s in-house counsel, has been involved in searching for
and producing documents in this case since 2021, and worked with IT to run the searches
necessary to respond to RFP 67. As discussed above, however, the universe of documents
responsive to RFP 13 differs from the universe that would have been revealed in response
to RFP 67. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the broader search was performed
or that Mr. Weiner would have personal knowledge of what research, if any, was
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL - 2

1
2
3

performed by or for defendant over the years. The bald assertion that there is no responsive
research – in the absence of any evidence of a good faith search or personal knowledge -does not satisfy defendant’s discovery obligations.

4

B. Request for Production Nos. 16 and 17

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

RFP 16 seeks defendant’s policies related to the handling of a customer’s request to
have his or her High 5 Casino account and/or credit card information disabled. RFP 17
seeks any polices that would come into play when a customer mentions addiction or major
life events in his or her communications with defendant. Defendant argues that the motion
to compel a response to these RFPs should be denied because plaintiff failed to meet and
confer, defendant searched for and produced addiction-related documents in response to
RFP 67, and no documents are created when customers disable their accounts as described
in RFP 16. These arguments are rejected for the reasons stated above.

13

C. Request for Production No. 49

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Plaintiff seeks all communications received by Deanna Ishikawa that raised a red
flag or concern that a customer was addicted to gambling. 1 As an example, RFP 49
identifies a communication Ms. Ishikawa discussed during her deposition. Defendant
argues that it has already searched for and produced responsive documents, an assertion
that appears to be based on the search for documents containing “Addiction Phrases” in
response to RFP 67. Dkt. # 234-1 at ¶ 7; Dkt. # 234-2 at ¶ 13. The list of record custodians
identified in RFP 67 includes Ms. Ishikawa. While there does not appear to be any
justification for making defendant again search Ms. Ishikawa’s records for general
addiction-related words or phrases, a more narrow search for the specific communication
Ms. Ishikawa mentioned during her deposition is warranted.

24
25
26

1

Ms. Ishikawa no longer works for defendant.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL - 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

D. Certification
During the meet and confer process and the briefing of this motion, defendant
promised to search for additional documents and has made supplemental productions.
Plaintiff seeks assurance, in the form of an attorney certification, that defendant has now
completed its search for and production of all responsive documents. Defendant did not
respond to this request for relief.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2), a party responding to requests
for production must do so in writing and complete production within thirty days of the
request. Rule 26(g)(1) requires that discovery responses be signed by at least one attorney
of record. While neither Rule 26(g) nor Rule 34(b) requires the signing attorney to certify
the truthfulness of the client’s factual responses to a discovery request, her signature
certifies that the lawyer has made a reasonable effort to assure that the client has provided
all the responsive information and documents then available. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g),
Advisory Committee Notes (1993). In addition, the requesting party “is entitled to
individualized, complete responses to each of the requests, as numbered and identified in
the requests, accompanied by production of each of the documents responsive to the
request . . . .” Louen v. Twedt, 236 F.R.D. 502, 505 (E.D. Cal. 2006). A party should not
have to piece together requests, initial responses, correspondence, promises, and
supplemental productions in an attempt to ascertain that all responsive documents have
been produced. Id. Because that is exactly what plaintiff must attempt to do here, his
request for a certification of completeness will be granted.

22
23
24
25

For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to compel (Dkt. # 232) is
GRANTED. Defendant shall, within fourteen days of the date of this Order,
(a) supplement its responses to RFP Nos. 13, 16, 17, and 49 and (b) certify that it has

26
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL - 4

1
2
3

completed good faith searches in response to the initial requests for production, as
compelled by the Court, and/or as agreed during the meet and confer process and that it
has produced all responsive documents.

4
5

Dated this 18th day of December, 2023.

6
7

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL - 5