Adamson v. Pierce County

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA CHRIS ADAMSON, et al., CASE NO. 3:21-cv-05592-BHS Plaintiffs, v. ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL PIERCE COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel.1 Dkt. 62. Having considered the parties’ briefing and relevant record, the Motion (Dkt. 62) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part for reasons explained herein. The parties are familiar with the claims and allegations underlying this case, and the Court summarizes them here only in brief. This case arises out of an investigation by the Pierce County Prosecutor’s Office and 2020 shutdowns of the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department’s

1 On May 30, 2023, the Honorable Benjamin H. Settle entered an Order in this case granting Defendants’ motion to continue the trial date, and referred two pending Motions to Compel (Dkts. 48, 62), and any other discovery matters that arise, to the undersigned. See Dkt. 76. Special Investigation Unit (“SIU”)—a unit dedicated to investigating narcotics and enforcing anti-vice laws in Pierce County.2 Dkt. 1-2 at 5. Plaintiffs, nine Pierce County Sheriff’s Department deputies, were assigned to the SIU and subsequently included on the Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office (“PCPAO”) Brady/Potential Impeachment Evidence (“PIE”) list.

Id. at 5–10. Defendants are former Sheriff Paul Pastor, Undersheriff and Acting Sheriff Brent Bomkamp, and Pierce County, as a government entity operating through its officials and employees. Id. at 10–11. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs assert several claims based on Defendants’ involvement with their placement on the PCPAO’s Brady/PIE list, including 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Free Speech and Redress violations, and state claims of Defamation/False Light, Outrage, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, and Breach of Contract. See id. More specifically, Plaintiffs allege In an official capacity, Pierce County’s officials fabricated allegations [against Plaintiffs] then recorded them in documents to publish as so called ‘Brady’ material. [Defendants] instigated multiple unfounded investigations, targeted plaintiffs with heightened scrutiny, and published disparaging unwarranted criticisms during the Sheriff’s election cycle to influence the election, and to deter plaintiffs and others similarly situated from exercising with protected rights. Id. at 5. On May 25, 2022, the Chief Judge David G. Estudillo entered an Order granting in part and denying in part a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants. Dkt. 24. The claims related directly to the Brady/PIE list were dismissed, but the claims listed above remain. Id. In addition, several Defendants were dismissed on immunity grounds. Id. Also on May 25, 2022, Chief Judge Estudillo entered an Order denying, as moot, two motions regarding discovery filed by the parties. Dkt. 25. With respect to Plaintiffs’ pending 2 Plaintiffs initially filed suit in Thurston County Superior Court, at Complaint No. 21-2-01294-34, and in August 2021, the case was removed to this Court. See Dkt. 1. discovery requests, the Court directed Plaintiffs to revise their written discovery requests in light of the Court’s decision on the Motion to Dismiss, and re-serve them on Defendants. Id. at 1, 3. Since then, the parties have been engaged in further discovery. On March 28, 2023, the parties filed a Joint Statement of Discovery Dispute, informing the Court they had reached an impasse

over Plaintiffs’ written discovery requests. Dkt. 45. Plaintiffs identified multiple insufficiencies in Defendants’ discovery responses, while Defendants asserted that Plaintiffs’ requests are overly broad, vague, not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and disproportionate to the remaining claims. Id. Chief Judge Estudillo held a discovery conference on these issues on April 24, 2023. See Dkt. 54. At the conference, the Court directed the parties to meet and confer in the courtroom in an attempt to resolve the discovery disputes outlined in their Joint Statement. See Dkt. 55. After conferring for nearly two hours, the parties indicated they had narrowed down the discovery issues, but the Court reserved ruling on the discovery disputes pending resolution of a possible issue of Court conflict. Id. at 19–24. The following day, April 25, 2023, Chief Judge Estudillo

recused himself and this matter was reassigned to Judge Settle. See Dkt. 51. Plaintiffs attach, as an Exhibit to the instant Motion to Compel, a Table of Insufficiencies with handwritten notes from the April 24, 2023, conference. Dkt. 63, Ex. F. On May 5, 2023, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Compel, asserting Defendants have failed to adequately respond to Plaintiff Fajardo’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production. Dkt. 62. The requests seek discovery for all Plaintiffs and consist of eleven (11) interrogatories and sixty-six (66) requests for production (“RFP”). See Dkt. 63. Defendants responded to the Motion to Compel on May 22, 2023 (Dkt. 72), and Plaintiffs’ replied on May 26, 2023 (Dkt. 74). On May 31, 2023, Defendants filed a Surreply (Dkt. 79), to which Plaintiffs

responded with a Motion to Strike the Surreply (Dkt. 80). Defendants have responded to the Motion to Strike. Dkt. 82. Plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Strike Defendants’ Surreply relating to the instant

Motion to Compel. Dkt. 80. Plaintiffs argue the Surreply should be stricken or otherwise disregarded in its entirety because it contains improper accusations of wrongdoing on the part of Plaintiffs’ counsel which are false, immaterial, and impertinent. Id. Plaintiffs’ counsel further argues the Surreply has no legitimate purpose in that it has no bearing on the sufficiency or adequacy of Defendants’ responses to the discovery requests. Id. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) permits a court to strike from any pleading “any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” Fed R. Civ. P. 12(f); Fantasy, Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993) rev'd on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517 (1994). A matter is immaterial if it has no essential or important relationship to the claim for relief or defenses pled, and a matter is impertinent if it does not pertain to, and is unnecessary to, the

issue(s) in question. Fantasy, Inc., 984 F.2d at 1527. Motions to strike are disfavored because they are often dilatory and because of the limited importance of pleadings in federal practice. Cortina v. Goya Foods, Inc., 94 F. Supp. 3d 1174, 1182 (S.D. Cal. March 19, 2015); see also Gottesman v. Santana, 263 F. Supp. 3d 1034, 1038 (S.D. Cal. July 6, 2017). A motion to strike should not be granted unless the matter to be stricken clearly has no possible bearing on the litigation’s subject matter. Colaprico v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 758 F. Supp. 1335, 1339 (N.D. Cal. March 13, 1991). Lastly, as with a motion to dismiss, a motion to strike must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and any doubt regarding the import of the

allegations weighs in favor of denying a motion to strike. In re 2TheMart.com, Inc. Securities Litigation, 114 F. Supp. 2d 955, 965 (C.D. Cal. July 17, 2000). Having considered the Motion to Strike, as well as Defendants’ Surreply, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ request to strike the Surreply at this time because doubt remains as to whether

the Surreply is so irrelevant as to have “no possible bearing on the subject matter of the litigation,” and which must be resolved in favor of the nonmoving party. Colaprico, 758 F. Supp. at 1339. The Motion to Strike (Dkt. 80) is DENIED. The Court strongly disfavors discovery motions and prefers that the parties resolve discovery issues on their own. However, if the parties are unable to resolve a discovery dispute, the requesting party may move for an order to compel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). The party that resists discovery has the burden to show why the discovery request should be denied. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975). “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any

party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). In evaluating a disputed discovery request, the Court should consider “the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Id. However, Rule 26(b)(2)(C) provides that the Court must limit the frequency of discovery otherwise allowed by the federal civil rules or by local rule if the Court determines that: “(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking

discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i)–(iii). Further, materials need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. Id. District

Courts ultimately retain broad discretion to permit or deny discovery, Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (2002), and this broad discretion encompasses relevancy determinations, Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005). Information is relevant if it is “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. (quoting Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1470 (9th Cir. 1992)). Initially, the Court notes that, prior to the filing of this Motion to Compel, at the April 24, 2023, discovery conference, Chief Judge Estudillo was very clear as to how he believed these discovery disputes could be resolved, particularly with the Court’s assistance, if necessary. See Dkt. 55. The Court used RFP No. 4 as an example. Id. at 15–16. When Defendants asserted they had nothing more to answer as to any specific arguments Plaintiffs were making for that request,

the Court stated, And then I’m going to ask Ms. Mell, well, what do you think is missing? And if you think there’s something missing, tell me exactly what you think is missing because until you tell me what’s missing, I don’t know what to order defendants to produce. So if you think there’s something missing, what is it, is it a specific date, is it a specific individual that you think they didn’t produce a statement from? I don’t know. If you can identify what’s missing, then I will tell them, produce it, if it’s relevant to this particular interrogatory or request for production.

But if they’re going to tell me, we’ve produced everything from No. 4, and you don’t tell me what you think is missing, other than we don’t think they’ve answered it completely, I’m not going to order them to produce anything on No. 4.

Id. In the instant Motion, Plaintiffs seek an Order compelling Defendants to provide supplemental responses and additional documents in response to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests. Dkt. 62. However, it is not clear if Plaintiffs are referring to some requests or all requests. See id. Plaintiffs’ Motion is peppered with language outlining Defendants’ failure to respond to the

requests, but none of that language is specific as to any one request. See id. Without such specificity, the Court is unable to discern what information Plaintiffs want further produced. To make matters worse, Plaintiffs have not provided the Court with a Proposed Order and, as set forth in subsequent briefing on the Motion, Defendants have provided supplemental responses since the Motion was filed. See Dkt. 73, Ex. 1 (Defendants’ Supplemental Answers, Provided May 22, 2023); Dkt. 75, Ex. A (Emails from Defendants providing supplemental discovery answers). Plaintiffs’ Reply lists thirty-six (36) RFPs and six (6) interrogatories that Defendants have “failed to identify or produce information responsive to,” or “refused to answer,” respectively, but does not indicate what Plaintiffs believe is missing or, in the alternative, provide substantive argument for why the Court should compel Defendants to produce

information over their objections. Dkt. 74 at 3–5. In addition, this list of 42 total requests does not match what was apparently missing when the parties conferred at the April 24, 2023, discovery conference. See Dkt. 63, Ex. F (Table of Insufficiencies from April 24, 2023, hearing). For example, on the table Plaintiffs note “answered” next to RFP No. 58 (Dkt. 63 at 68); however, in the Reply, Plaintiffs list RFP No. 58 as a request in need of further response (Dkt. 74 at 4). In any other situation, it would appear that another discovery conference is in order, but, in light of the seemingly contentious relationship between counsel during discovery which has brought the parties to an impasse, the Court will not take that approach. Rather, the Court will

follow Chief Judge Estudillo’s lead in resolving these discovery disputes on paper. That is, the Court will examine each request and, if Plaintiffs have identified what is missing, the Court will direct Defendants to produce, if relevant. Otherwise, absent more specificity, the Court simply lacks sufficient information to fully resolve each production request. In an effort to dislodge the

parties’ discovery impasse, the Court will address the requests in the categories set forth in Plaintiff Fajardo’s First Interrogatories and Requests for Production, using the latest exhibit provided by the parties which includes Defendants’ supplemental responses. See Dkt. 73, Ex. 1. Lastly, in considering the Motion, the Court addresses Plaintiffs’ argument with respect to Defendants’ objections to certain discovery requests based on the dismissal of the Brady/PIE claims. See Dkt. 74 at 7–9. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ objection based on Brady/PIE information is improper, as such information is still relevant to the remaining claims at issue. Id. at 7–8. They note that, as a result of the Order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiffs’ claim of First Amendment retaliation against Pastor and Bomkamp and state law claims against Pierce County for defamation, false light, outrage,

negligent infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract, were not dismissed. Id. at 9; see Dkt. 24. Here, the Court finds information related to the Brady/PIE claims remain relevant to the remaining claims. More specifically, because the District Court found Defendants Pastor and Bomkamp were not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to the First Amendment retaliation claim and that the state law claims against Pierce County could proceed (see Dkt. 24 at 13–17; 21–25), information related to the creation of the Brady/PIE list remains relevant. As such, the Court will not strike any of the related discovery requests based on a finding that the request seeks Brady/PIE information.

A. “Background” 1. Interrogatory No. 1 and Request for Production No. 1 Interrogatory No. 1 asks Defendants to “[i]dentify each person who answered or provided answers to these discovery requests by name, title, address, and telephone number.” Dkt. 73 at 7.

RFP No. 1 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll documents viewed or considered when answering Interrogatory No. 1.” Id. Defendants initially objected to Interrogatory No. 1 as overly broad and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. Not waiving that objection, Defendants provided a list of five persons in response to the Interrogatory. Id. In supplemental answers, Defendants provided twenty-three more names. Id. Defendants also objected to RFP No. 1 as overly broad and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and added that the request was “[d]uplicative and/or cumulative to other discovery requests. Answer to this discovery request can be determined by documents and materials produced in response to subsequent discovery requests.” Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants assert these requests have

been answered, adding that Interrogatory No. 1 is not relevant as it involves matters beyond the remaining claims in this lawsuit. Dkt. 72 at 5. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference Interrogatory No. 1 or RFP No. 1, let alone explain how the information sought is relevant or proportional.3 See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74. Without more, the Court will not require

3 In their Reply, Plaintiffs briefly mention that, despite filing supplemental answers on May 22, 2023, Defendants still have not supplemented their response with documents from Brent Bomkamp since his May 17, 2023 deposition. Dkt. 74 at 10–11. According to Plaintiffs, Mr. Bomkamp testified that he had just started to search for responsive records. Id. at 11. Plaintiffs do not respond, however, to Defendants argument that documentation in this request was duplicative and/or cumulative to other discovery requests. See Dkt. 73 at 7. Without knowing what Plaintiffs believe is missing and being able to determine it has or has not been produced in response to other requests, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond to this request. Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to Interrogatory No. 1 and RFP No. 1 is denied without prejudice. B. “Witnesses” 1. Interrogatory No. 2 and Request for Production No. 2

Interrogatory No. 2 asks Defendants to “[i]dentify each witness who may have information about this case or whom you intend to call at trial, including the witness’s name, address and telephone number, and the summary of the witness’s knowledge or testimony.” Dkt. 73 at 7. RFP No. 2 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll documents viewed or considered when answering Interrogatory No. 2.” Id. Defendants responded to both requests with a reference to Defendants’ Initial Disclosures dated November 10, 2021. Id. In addition, Defendants objected to Interrogatory No. 2 as premature, as “[d]iscovery and investigation are ongoing, and all witnesses have not yet been determined.” Id. They also objected to RFP No. 2 as overly broad and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants

reiterate that Interrogatory No. 2 is overly broad, adding that it is not relevant to the remaining claims in this lawsuit. Dkt. 72 at 5. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference Interrogatory No. 2 or RFP No. 2, let alone explain how the information sought is relevant or proportional. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to Interrogatory No. 2 and RFP No. 2 is denied without prejudice. /// ///

C. “Experts” 1. Interrogatory No. 3 and Request for Production No. 3 Interrogatory No. 3 asks Defendants to identify each expert witness they intend to call at the time of trial, as well as

the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, state the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify, provide a summary if the grounds for each opinion, and list each and every fact, document, or information the expert intends to rely upon to support his or her opinions. Dkt. 73 at 8. RFP No. 3 asks Defendants to produce all documents reviewed and relied upon by any expert identified in Interrogatory No. 3, as well as the expert’s files, resume or curriculum vitae, any documents, treatises, or articles your expert relies upon to formulate testimony or opinions in this matter, e-mails and correspondence prepared or received by the expert, billing statements, contract for services, a list of cases wherein the expert has testified, and any writings or prior deposition testimony from any cases the expert relies upon to establish his or her qualifications.

Id. Defendants initially responded to Interrogatory No. 3 with a reference to Defendants’ Disclosure of Expert Witnesses dated August 8, 2022. Id. They also stated that discovery and investigation were ongoing and that they would disclose experts pursuant to the applicable case schedule. Id. They noted the request may be premature. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants referred to their Rebuttal Expert Disclosure dated April 25, 2023. Id. Defendants initially objected to RFP No. 3 as premature, but in a supplemental answer referenced the April 25, 2023, Rebuttal Expert Disclosure and noted that “[i]t is believed that all documents are in the possession of Plaintiffs.” Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants state Interrogatory No. 3 has been answered, but also that it is duplicative of expert disclosures. Dkt. 72 at 5. They also assert that RFP No. 3 has been answered. Id. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference Interrogatory No. 3 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their Reply argues that Defendants have “failed to identify or produce information responsive to RFP 3 (expert files)” (Dkt. 74 at 3). Plaintiffs do not indicate what they believe to be missing or, in the alternative, provide

substantive argument for why the Court should compel Defendants to produce information over their objections. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74 at 3). Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to Interrogatory No. 3 and RFP No. 3 is denied without prejudice. D. “Communications” 1. Interrogatory No. 4 and Request for Production No. 4 Interrogatory No. 4 asks Defendants to “[i]dentify each ‘argument’ put forth by current and former SIU members to which the Robnett e-mail at Appendix L of the Complaint, Bates No. ‘Plntffs000054,’ refers.” Dkt. 73 at 8. RFP No. 4 asks Defendants to produce “[d]ocuments viewed or considered when answering Interrogatory No. 4. Include all communications about the

Robnett e-mail at Appendix L of the Complaint, Bates No. ‘Plntffs000054.’” Id. Defendants objected to both requests as overly broad. Dkt. 73 at 8, 9. In addition, Defendants noted that, as the requests relate to Brady/PIE claims, those claims have been dismissed. Id. at 8. Defendants also stated that, without waiving objection, the subject e-mail identifies arguments shown in the TNT article, and the e-mail and article speak for themselves. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants argue Interrogatory No. 4 is not relevant to the remaining claims and seeks Brady/PIE information. Dkt. 72 at 5. They also state that RFP No. 4 has been answered. Id.

In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference Interrogatory No. 4 or RFP No. 4, let alone explain how the information sought is relevant or proportional. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74. While the April 24, 2023 Table of Insufficiencies includes a notation that Defendants produced no responsive documents but

references the TNT article (see Dkt. 63, Ex. F, at 63), Plaintiffs make no further argument in their Motion to Compel, nor do they explain how the information sought is relevant or proportional. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiff’s request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to Interrogatory No. 4 and RFP No. 4 is denied without prejudice. 2. Request for Production No. 5 RFP No. 5 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll documents to or from or generated by Kris Nordstrom specific to any plaintiff from 2019 to present or the allegations set forth in the Complaint.” Dkt. 73 at 9. Defendants initially objected, arguing the request is “overly broad and vague as to response option. Compound.” Dkt. 73 at 9. They also claimed the request was not

likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. However, Defendants added, without waiving objection, that “approximately 15k documents have been gathered and must be reviewed to determine responsiveness and redactions.” Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants contended the request is not relevant to the remaining claims and seeks Brady/PIE information. Id. Defendants state that Kris Nordstrom was an SIU member and his complaints to the PCPAO regarding SIU practices initiated the Brady/PIE investigation. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants argue RFP No. 5 should be struck as overly broad and not relevant to the remaining claims and seeks Brady/PIE information. Dkt. 72 at 5.

In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs claim this request contains information regarding criticisms of Plaintiffs by Defendants. Dkt. 63, Ex. F, at 63. They argue Kris Nordstrom was one of the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department employees who was “fabricating complaints about Plaintiffs and disseminating those false claims publicly.” Dkt. 74

at 6. Plaintiffs further argue that Defendants’ objection based on Brady/PIE information is improper, as such information is still relevant to the remaining claims at issue. Id. at 7–8. Upon review, the Court finds the information sought in this request relevant to the remaining claims. Thus, the Court grants the Plaintiffs’ motion and directs the Defendants to further respond to RFP No. 5. 3. Request for Production No. 6 RFP No. 6 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll documents to or from or generated by Derrick Nielson specific to any plaintiffs from 2019 to present or the allegations set forth in the Complaint.” Dkt. 73 at 9. Defendants initially objected, arguing the request is “overly broad and vague as to response option. Compound.” Dkt. 73 at 9. They also claimed the request was not

likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. However, Defendants added, without waiving objection, that “approximately 19k documents have been gathered and must be reviewed to determine responsiveness and redactions.” Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants contended the request is not relevant to the remaining claims and seeks Brady/PIE information. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants assert the request should be struck and state that “Derrick Nielson was an SIU member and was involved with complaints to the PCPAO regarding SIU practices initiated the Brady/PIE investigation conducted by former Defendant Prosecuting Attorney James Schacht who was dismissed from this action.” Dkt. 72 at 5.

In their Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs again argue that Defendants’ objection based on Brady/PIE information is improper, as such information is still relevant to the remaining claims at issue. Dkt. 74 at 7–8. For the reasons discussed above in relation to RFP No. 5, the Court finds the information

sought in this request relevant to the remaining claims. See supra. Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs’ Motion and directs the Defendants to further respond to RFP No. 6. 4. Request for Production No. 7 RFP No. 7 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll documents including interview notes of Derrick Nielson to, from, or created by James Leoffoholz specific to any plaintiff from 2019 to present or the allegations set forth in the complaint.” Dkt. 73 at 9. Defendants objected, arguing the request is “overly broad and vague as to response option. Compound.” Id. They also claimed the request was not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. However, Defendants added, without waiving objection and limiting their answer to documents or notes of Derrick Nielson created by James Leoffoholz, a response including Mr. Leoffoholz’s notes. See

id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants contended the request is not relevant to the remaining claims and seeks Brady/PIE information. Id. at 10. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants argue the request should be struck and state “Derrick Nielson was an SIU member and was involved with complaints to the PCPAO regarding SIU practices initiated the Brady/PIE investigation conducted by former Defendant Prosecuting Attorney James Schacht who was dismissed from this action.” Dkt. 72 at 5. In their Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs again argue that Defendants’ objection based on Brady/PIE information is improper, as such information is still relevant to the remaining claims at issue. Dkt. 74 at 7–8.

For the reasons discussed above in relation to RFP No. 5, the Court finds the information sought in this request relevant to the remaining claims and grants the Plaintiffs’ Motion. See supra. RFP No. 7 and the response thereto shall not be stricken. 5. Request for Production No. 8

RFP No. 8 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll documents to, from, or generated by Mike Blair specific to any plaintiff from 2019 to present or the allegations set forth in the complaint.” Dkt. 73 at 10. Defendants initially objected, arguing the request is “overly broad and vague as to response option. Compound.” Dkt. 73 at 10. They also claimed the request was not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. However, Defendants added, without waiving objection, that “approximately 24k documents have been gathered and must be reviewed to determine responsiveness and redactions.” Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants contended the request is not relevant to the remaining claims and seeks Brady/PIE information. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants again contend the request is overly broad, vague, not relevant, and is disproportionate to the remaining claims. Dkt. 72 at 5–6. Defendants also

provide detail on the parties’ dispute with respect to narrowing the scope of this request. Id. In their Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs again argue that Defendants’ objection based on Brady/PIE information is improper, as such information is still relevant to the remaining claims at issue. Dkt. 74 at 7–8. For the reasons discussed above in relation to RFP No. 5, the Court finds the information sought in this request relevant to the remaining claims. See supra. Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs’ motion and directs the Defendants to further respond to RFP No. 8.

6. Request for Production No. 9 RFP No. 9 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll documents to, from, or generated by Nick Hausner specific to any plaintiff from 2019 to present or the allegations set forth in the complaint.” Dkt. 73 at 10. Defendants initially objected, arguing the request is “overly broad and

vague as to response option. Compound.” Dkt. 73 at 10. They also claimed the request was not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. However, Defendants added, without waiving objection, that “approximately 34k documents have been gathered and must be reviewed to determine responsiveness and redactions.” Id. Additionally and without waiving objection, Defendants added a response including “Nick Hausner files.” Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants contended the request is not relevant to the remaining claims and seeks Brady/PIE information. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants assert the request should be struck and again contend the request is overly broad, vague, not relevant, and is disproportionate to the remaining claims. Dkt. 72 at 6. Defendants also provide detail on the parties’ dispute with respect to clarifying and/or narrowing the scope of this request. Id.

In their Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs again argue that Defendants’ objection based on Brady/PIE information is improper, as such information is still relevant to the remaining claims at issue. Dkt. 74 at 7–8. For the reasons discussed above in relation to RFP No. 5, the Court finds the information sought in this request relevant to the remaining claims. See supra. Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs’ motion and directs the Defendants to further respond to RFP No. 9. 7. Request for Production No. 10 RFP No. 10 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll documents to, from, or generated by Elaine Lilly specific to the Peres case or the allegations set forth in the Complaint.” Dkt. 73 at 10.

Defendants initially objected, arguing the request is “overly broad and vague as to response option. Compound.” Id. They also claimed the request was not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. Defendants added, without waiving objection, that the search was ongoing and a request had been made to Plaintiffs for “clarification regarding identification of

the ‘Peres’ case.” Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants added, “Elaine Lilly is a legal assistant in the felony division of PCPAO. She has no personal involvement in Plaintiffs’ claims. The discovery request is not relevant to the remaining claims in this lawsuit. This discovery request may be supplement[ed].” Id. at 10–11. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants again contend the request is overly broad, vague, not relevant, and is disproportionate to the remaining claims. Dkt. 72 at 6. Defendants also provide detail on the parties’ dispute with respect to clarifying and/or narrowing the scope of this request. Id. In the supporting documents to the Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs note “she has nothing” in the April 24, 2023, Table of Insufficiencies. Dkt. 63, Ex. F, at 63. Other than this note, Plaintiffs make no further argument in their Motion to Compel, nor do they explain how the

information sought is relevant or proportional. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiff’s request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 10 is denied without prejudice. 8. Request for Production No. 11 RFP No. 11 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll documents to, from, or generated by Priscilla Crabtree specific to any plaintiff or the allegations set forth in the Complaint.” Dkt. 73 at 11. Defendants initially objected, arguing the request is “overly broad and vague as to response option. Compound.” Id. They also claimed the request was not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. Defendants added, without waiving objection, that

“voluminous documents have been gathered and must be reviewed to determine responsiveness and redactions.” Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants added, “Priscilla Crabtree is a legal assistant in the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department Internal Affairs department. She has no personal involvement in Plaintiffs’ claims. The discovery request is not relevant to the remaining

claims in this lawsuit.” Id. Defendants also directed Plaintiffs to respond to RFP No. 17 for further response. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants assert the request should be struck and again contend the request is overly broad, vague, not relevant, and is disproportionate to the remaining claims. Dkt. 72 at 7. Defendants also provide detail on the parties’ dispute with respect to clarifying and/or narrowing the scope of this request. Id. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 11 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their April 24, 2023 Table of Insufficiencies notes “provided specific terms” with respect to this request (Dkt. 63, Ex. F, at 63). Further, their Reply argues that Defendants have “failed to identify or produce information responsive to . . . RFP 11 (Office Assistant Internal Affairs Priscilla Crabtree’s communications about Plaintiffs).”

Dkt. 74 at 3. Plaintiffs do not indicate what they believe is missing or, in the alternative, provide substantive argument for why the Court should compel Defendants to produce information over their objections. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74 at 3. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 11 is denied without prejudice. 9. Request for Production No. 12 RFP No. 12 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll documents to, from, or generated by Ed Troyer, Todd Karr, Chad Arceneaux, Gerald Lawrence, Brent Bomkamp, Paul Pastor, James Schacht, Fred Wist, Lisa Wagner, Grace Kingman, Rosie Martinelli, Tim Donlin, Gary Sanders,

Jim Heishman, Kevin Roberts, Kate Oliver, Mary Robnett specific to any plaintiff or the allegations set forth in the Complaint.” Dkt. 73 at 11. Defendants initially objected, arguing the request is “overly broad and vague as to response option. Compound.” Id. They also claimed the request was not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. Defendants added,

without waiving objection, that a search was ongoing. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants added that the request was “duplicative of similar discovery requests directed to Defendants Pastor and Bomkamp, and all other individuals identified relate directly to the Brady/PIE claims and PERC/labor grievance matters.” Id. Defendants also added a response including PCSD investigation files. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants assert the request should be struck and again contend the request is overly broad, vague, not relevant, and is disproportionate to the remaining claims. Dkt. 72 at 7. Defendants also provide detail on the parties’ dispute with respect to clarifying and/or narrowing the scope of this request. Id. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 12 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their Reply argues that Defendants have “failed

to identify or produce information responsive to . . . RFP 12 (Sheriff Pastor, Sheriff Troyer, Acting Sheriff/Undersheriff Bomkamp, Captain Lawrence, Det. Donlin, Major Sanders, Chief Heishman, Chief Roberts communications about Plaintiffs, limited partial response heavily redacted with no exemption log)” (Dkt. 74 at 3). Plaintiffs do not indicate what they believe is missing or, in the alternative, provide substantive argument for why the Court should compel Defendants to produce information over their objections. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74 at 3). Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 12 is denied without prejudice.

10. Request for Production No. 13 RFP No. 13 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll documents of all communications with the Federal Bureau of Investigations into any action or inaction by any named Plaintiff.” Dkt. 73 at 11. Defendants initially objected, arguing the request is “overly broad and vague as to response

option. Compound.” Id. They also claimed the request was not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. Defendants added, without waiving objection, that a search was ongoing. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants further objected to the extent that the discovery request sought Brady/PIE information. Dkt. 73 at 12. They added that “[t]he materials included in this production are business records and may include responsive documents to which the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer to the discovery request is substantially the same for either party and the materials are produced as allowed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d).” Id. Defendants also added a response including email communications and telephone summary reports. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants argue this request should be struck, is tantamount to a fishing expedition, and pertains to the Brady/PIE investigation. Dkt. 72

at 7. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 13, let alone explain how the information sought is relevant or proportional. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 13 is denied without prejudice. 11. Request for Production No. 14 RFP No. 14 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll documents that involve technologies used by any plaintiff. This should include all communications about plaintiffs’ technologies, as well

as all documents from plaintiff’s technologies that you possess, and any analysis of the content taken from plaintiffs’ technologies.” Dkt. 73 at 12. Defendants objected, arguing the request is “overly broad and vague as to ‘technologies.’” Dkt. 73 at 12. They added that a request was made for clarification of the definition of “technologies” and that a search was ongoing. Id. In

their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants argue the term “technologies” is vague, but add that Plaintiffs “now seek to define technologies as emails, text messages, Microsoft Teams call information, phone information, laptops, Instant Messaging information, and Internet Cloud information.” Dkt. 72 at 7–8. They also assert the request should be struck. Id. at 7. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 14 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their Reply argues that Defendants have “failed to identify or produce information responsive to . . . RFP 14 (Communications about Plaintiffs technologies)” (Dkt. 74 at 3). Plaintiffs do not indicate what they believe is missing or, in the alternative, provide substantive argument for why the Court should compel Defendants to produce information over their objections. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74 at 3. Without more, the

Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 14 is denied without prejudice. E. “Executive’s Offices” 1. Request for Production No. 15 RFP No. 15 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll documents from files and records created by or in the possession of Bruce Dammeier or his staff that contain content specific to any named plaintiff or the allegations set forth in the Complaint.” Dkt. 73 at 12. Defendants initially objected, arguing the request is “overly broad and vague as to response option. Compound.” Id. They also claimed the request was not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id.

Defendants added, without waiving objection, that a search was ongoing. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants added a response including e-mail communications. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants argue Bruce Dammeier is the elected Executive for Pierce County with no personal involvement in Plaintiffs’ claims. Dkt. 72 at 8. They also contend that

the request should be struck, as it is not relevant to the remaining claims in the lawsuit, is tantamount to a fishing expedition, and any claim Mr. Dammeier personally has to the claims is tangential at best. Id. Defendants also provide detail on the parties’ dispute with respect to clarifying and/or narrowing the scope of this request. Id. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 15, let alone explain how the information sought is relevant or proportional. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 15 is denied without prejudice. F. “Sheriff’s Department”

1. Request for Production No. 16 RFP No. 16 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll documents from files and records created by or in the possession of Sheriff and former Sheriff or his staff or former staff that contain content specific to any named plaintiff or the allegations set forth in the Complaint.” Dkt. 73 at 12–13. Defendants initially objected, arguing the request is “overly broad and vague as to response option. Compound.” Id. at 13. They also claimed the request was not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants asserted that current Sheriff Ed Troyer has no personal involvement in Plaintiffs’ claims, and the discovery request is duplicative to other discovery requests directed at Defendant Pastor. Id. In their

Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants add that the request should be struck and is tantamount to a fishing expedition. Dkt. 72 at 8. They also provide detail on the parties’ dispute with respect to clarifying and/or narrowing the scope of this request. Id. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically

reference RFP No. 16 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their Reply argues that Defendants have “failed to identify or produce information responsive to . . . RFP 16 (Documents created by Sheriff and his staff about Plaintiffs that disparage them or concern their performance)” (Dkt. 74 at 3). Plaintiffs do not indicate what exactly they believe is missing or, in the alternative, provide substantive argument for why the Court should compel Defendants to produce information over their objections. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74 at 3. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 16 is denied without prejudice. G. “Internal Affairs Files” 1. Request for Production No. 17

RFP No. 17 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll Pierce County Sheriff’s Department Internal Affairs documents on plaintiffs and named defendants.” Dkt. 73 at 13. Defendants initially objected that the request was overly broad and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. Defendants added, without waiving objection, that a search was ongoing. Id. In a first supplemental answer, Defendants added a response including four (4) sets of documents identified by Bates numbers. Id. In a second supplemental answer, Defendants added a response including sixteen (16) sets of documents identified by Bates numbers. Id. at 13–15. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants again argue the request is overly

broad, and add that it is “vague, not relevant, and is disproportionate to the remaining claims.” Dkt. 72 at 8. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 17, let alone explain how the information sought is relevant or proportional.

See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 17 is denied without prejudice. H. “Councilmember’s Offices” 1. Request for Production No. 18 RFP No. 18 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll documents from files and records created by or in the possession of any Pierce County Councilmember or his or her staff or former staff that contain content specific to any named plaintiff or the allegations set forth in the Complaint dating back to 2019.” Dkt. 73 at 15. Defendants initially objected that the request was “overly broad and vague as to response option. Compound,” and not likely to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence. Id. Defendants added, without waiving objection, that a search was ongoing. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants argued the County Council has no personal involvement in Plaintiffs’ claims and the request is not relevant to the remaining claims in this lawsuit, but included a set of responsive documents identified by Bates numbers. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants reiterate their arguments on objection, adding that the request should be struck, is tantamount to a fishing expedition and providing detail on the parties’ dispute with respect to clarifying and/or narrowing the scope of this request. Dkt. 72 at 8–9.

In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 18 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their Reply argues that Defendants have “failed to identify or produce information responsive to . . . RFP 18 (Documents from Councilmember’s Offices specific to Plaintiffs that disparage them or concern their performance)” (Dkt. 74 at 3).

Plaintiffs do not indicate what they believe is missing or, in the alternative, provide substantive argument for why the Court should compel Defendants to produce information over their objections. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74 at 3. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 18 is denied without prejudice. I. “IT Department” 1. Request for Production No. 19 RFP No. 19 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll documents from your IT department that show dates, times, and text content that has been deleted that may have been about plaintiffs or the allegations set forth in the Complaint since 2019.” Dkt. 73 at 15. Defendants initially

objected that the request was “overly broad and vague as to response option. Compound,” and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. Defendants added, without waiving objection, that a search was ongoing. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants asserted that the request was disproportionate to the remaining claims, adding that the request pertains to Brady/PIE matters that have been dismissed and pertains to other matters such as PERC/labor grievance matters and Public Records Requests. A general IT search for ‘deleted’ documents with Plaintiffs and Defendants Bomkamp and Pastor names has returned over 200K documents. Plaintiffs made no effort to clarify early in this case what this discovery request sought, but now claims it seeks metadata from any document that may have been about Plaintiffs. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants reiterate these points and assert the request should be struck. Dkt. 72 at 9. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 19 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their Reply argues that Defendants have “failed to identify or produce information responsive to . . . RFP 19 (Metadata showing dates and times texts about Plaintiffs and the allegations in the Complaint were deleted)” (Dkt. 74 at 3). Plaintiffs

do not indicate what they believe is missing or, in the alternative, provide substantive argument for why the Court should compel Defendants to produce information over their objections. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74 at 3. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 18 is denied without prejudice. J. “Telephone Records” 1. Request for Production No. 20 RFP No. 20 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll documents for telephones used by any named defendant from 2019 to present that contain call logs or text logs for communications about plaintiffs or the allegations set forth in the Complaint.” Dkt. 73 at 15–16. Defendants

initially objected that the request was “overly broad and vague as to response option. Compound,” and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. at 16. Defendants added, without waiving objection, that a search was ongoing. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants indicate that phone logs for Defendants Pastor and Bomkamp will be produced. Dkt. 72 at 9. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 20 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their Reply argues that Defendants have “failed to identify or produce information responsive to . . . RFP 20 (Telephone and text logs from 2019 to current for communications about Plaintiffs)” (Dkt. 74 at 3). Plaintiffs do not indicate what

they believe is missing, nor do they explain how the information sought is relevant or proportional. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74 at 3. Without more, the Court will assume this request, including the supplemental response from Defendants which states they will produce phone logs for Defendants Pastor and Bomkamp, has been sufficiently answered. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request

for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 20 is denied without prejudice. 2. Request for Production No. 21 RFP No. 21 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll documents for telephones used by you from 2019 to present that contain call logs or text logs for communications about plaintiffs or the allegations set forth in the Complaint.” Dkt. 73 at 16. Defendants initially objected that the request was “overly broad and vague as to response option. Compound,” and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. They added that the request “identifies no user and is intended to harass and increase cost of litigation,” and, without waiving objection, requested clarification regarding identification of user. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants reiterate the request is overly broad, vague as to “you,” not relevant, adding it should

be struck, is disproportionate to the remaining claims, tantamount to a fishing expedition, and duplicative to RFP No. 20. Dkt. 72 at 9. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 21 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their Reply argues that Defendants have “failed to identify or produce information responsive to . . . RFP 21 (Documents that contain call or text logs for communications about Plaintiffs)” (Dkt. 74 at 3). Plaintiffs do not indicate what they believe is missing or, in the alternative, provide substantive argument for why the Court should compel Defendants to produce information over their objections. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74 at 3.

Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 21 is denied without prejudice. K. “Texts” 1. Request for Production No. 22

RFP No. 22 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll texts from personal or work owned technologies with any content specific to any named plaintiff or the allegations set forth in the Complaint from 2019 to present.” Dkt. 73 at 16. Defendants initially objected that the request was “overly broad and vague as to response option. Compound,” and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. They added that the request is “vague as to ‘technologies’ and identifies no users. The discovery request appears intended to harass and increase cost of litigation,” and, without waiving objection, requested clarification regarding definition of “technologies” and identification of user. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants assert the request should be struck and reiterate their arguments on objection, adding that the request would pertain to any Pierce County employee and providing detail on the parties’

dispute with respect to clarifying and/or narrowing the scope of this request. Dkt. 72 at 9–10. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 22 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their Reply argues that Defendants have “failed to identify or produce information responsive to . . . RFP 22 (All texts from personal and work owned technologies criticizing Plaintiffs)” (Dkt. 74 at 3). Plaintiffs do not indicate what they believe is missing or, in the alternative, provide substantive argument for why the Court should compel Defendants to produce information over their objections. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74 at 3. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 22 is denied without prejudice.

L. “E-mail – Messaging – Social Media” 1. Request for Production No. 23 RFP No. 23 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll e-mails from personal or work owned technologies with any content specific to any named plaintiff or the allegations set forth in the

Complaint from 2019 to present.” Dkt. 73 at 16. Defendants initially objected that the request was “overly broad and vague as to response option. Compound,” and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. They added that the request is “vague as to ‘technologies’ and identifies no users. The discovery request appears intended to harass and increase cost of litigation,” and, without waiving objection, requested clarification regarding definition of “technologies” and identification of user. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants added a response including PCSD investigation files. Id. at 16–17. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants assert the request should be struck and reiterate their arguments on objection, adding that the request would pertain to any Pierce County employee and providing detail on the parties’ dispute with respect to clarifying and/or narrowing the scope of this request.

Dkt. 72 at 10. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 23 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their Reply argues that Defendants have “failed to identify or produce information responsive to . . . RFP 23 (e-mails with content specific to Plaintiffs and their performance, limited records)” (Dkt. 74 at 3–4). Plaintiffs do not indicate what they believe is missing or, in the alternative, provide substantive argument for why the Court should compel Defendants to produce information over their objections. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74 at 3–4. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus,

Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 23 is denied without prejudice. 2. Request for Production No. 24 RFP No. 24 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll messaging from personal or work owned

technologies with any content specific to any named plaintiff or the allegations set forth in the Complaint from 2019 to present.” Dkt. 73 at 17. Defendants initially objected that the request was “overly broad and vague as to response option. Compound,” and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. They added that the request is “vague as to ‘technologies’ and identifies no users. The discovery request appears intended to harass and increase cost of litigation,” and, without waiving objection, requested clarification regarding definition of “technologies” and identification of user. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants added a response including PCSD investigation files. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants assert the request should be struck and reiterate their arguments on objection, adding that the request would pertain to any Pierce County employee and providing detail on the parties’

dispute with respect to clarifying and/or narrowing the scope of this request. Dkt. 72 at 10. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 24 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their Reply argues that Defendants have “failed to identify or produce information responsive to . . . RFP 24 (Instant messaging with content specific to Plaintiffs or any criticisms of them)” (Dkt. 74 at 4). Plaintiffs do not indicate what exactly they believe is missing or, in the alternative, provide substantive argument for why the Court should compel Defendants to produce information over their objections. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74 at 4. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus,

Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 24 is denied without prejudice. 3. Request for Production No. 25 RFP No. 25 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll social media posts from personal or work

owned technologies with any content specific to any named plaintiff or the allegations set forth in the Complaint from 2019 to present.” Dkt. 73 at 17. Defendants initially objected that the request was “overly broad and vague as to response option. Compound,” and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. They added that the request is “vague as to ‘technologies’ and identifies no users. The discovery request appears intended to harass and increase cost of litigation,” and, without waiving objection, requested clarification regarding definition of “technologies” and identification of user. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants assert the request should be struck and reiterate their arguments on objection, adding that the request would pertain to any Pierce County employee and providing detail on the parties’ dispute with respect to clarifying and/or narrowing the scope of this request.

Dkt. 72 at 10–11. They add that, to the extent that an answer to other discovery requests may include materials from PCSD investigation files, that answer has been provided. Id. at 11. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 25 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their Reply argues that Defendants have “failed to identify or produce information responsive to . . . RFP 25 (Social media posts about Plaintiffs)” (Dkt. 74 at 4). Plaintiffs do not indicate what exactly they believe is missing or, in the alternative, provide substantive argument for why the Court should compel Defendants to produce information over their objections. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74 at 4. Without more, the

Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 25 is denied without prejudice. 4. Request for Production No. 26 RFP No. 26 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll communications with Kitsap County

Sheriff’s Department about plaintiffs or any investigation involving plaintiffs. Include each and every text, voice mail, messaging, post, email from or to Defendant Pastor, Bomkamp, or any witness interviewed or Guild member contacted in native format with metadata from personal and work owned technologies.” Dkt. 73 at 17. Defendants initially objected that the request was “overly broad and vague as to response option. Compound,” and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. Defendants added, without waiving objection, that a search was ongoing. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants added a response with reference to Kitsap County’s report produced with Defendants’ Initial Disclosures, and stated the request may be supplemented. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants assert the request should be struck and reiterate their arguments on objection and provide detail on the parties’

dispute with respect to clarifying and/or narrowing the scope of this request. Dkt. 72 at 11. They add that, to the extent that an answer to other discovery requests may include materials PCSD investigation files, that answer has been provided. Id. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 26 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their Reply argues that Defendants have “failed to identify or produce information responsive to . . . RFP 26 (All communications with Kitsap County Sheriff’s Department about Plaintiffs)” (Dkt. 74 at 4). Plaintiffs do not indicate what exactly they believe is missing or, in the alternative, provide substantive argument for why the Court should compel Defendants to produce information over their objections. See Dkts. 62; 63,

Ex. F; 74 at 4. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 26 is denied without prejudice. 5. Request for Production No. 27

RFP No. 27 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll communications with Clark County Sheriff’s Department about plaintiffs or any investigation involving plaintiffs. Include each and every text, voice mail, messaging, post, email from or to Defendant Pastor, Bomkamp, or any witness interviewed or Guild member contacted in native format with metadata from personal and work owned technologies.” Dkt. 73 at 18. Defendants initially objected that the request was “overly broad and vague as to response option. Compound,” and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. Defendants added, without waiving objection, that a search was ongoing. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants added a response with reference to Clark County’s report produced with Defendants’ Initial Disclosures, and stated the request may be supplemented. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants assert the request

should be struck and reiterate their arguments on objection and provide detail on the parties’ dispute with respect to clarifying and/or narrowing the scope of this request. Dkt. 72 at 11. They add that, to the extent that an answer to other discovery requests may include materials PCSD investigation files, that answer has been provided. Id. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 27 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their Reply argues that Defendants have “failed to identify or produce information responsive to . . . RFP 27 (All communications with Kitsap County Sheriff’s Department about Plaintiffs)” (Dkt. 74 at 4). Plaintiffs do not indicate what exactly they believe is missing or, in the alternative, provide substantive argument for why the

Court should compel Defendants to produce information over their objections. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74 at 4. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 27 is denied without prejudice.

6. Request for Production No. 28 RFP No. 28 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll documents to include handwritten notes taken by Kwayne Lund, Keith Barnes, Defendants Schacht, Wist, or any Sheriff’s Department employee of any interview of plaintiffs or any other person related to the actions of plaintiffs at Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office.” Dkt. 73 at 18. Defendants initially objected that the request was “overly broad and vague as to response option. Compound,” and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. Defendants added, without waiving objection, that a search was ongoing. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants added a response that included Jim Schacht files, Keith Barnes files, and Kawyne Lund files and notes (“Withheld as Atty-Client Privileged”). Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants argue this

request should be struck, as it pertains only to the Brady/PIE investigation conducted by former Defendant Prosecuting Attorney James Schacht who has been dismissed from this action. Dkt. 72 at 11. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 28, let alone explain how the information sought is relevant or proportional. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 28 is denied without prejudice.

7. Request for Production No. 29 RFP No. 29 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ny documents communicating to any plaintiff that faux or fabricated reports were improper.” Dkt. 73 at 18. Defendants initially objected that the request was overly broad and vague as “faux” or “fabricated” reports. Id. They

also claimed the request was not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. Defendants added, without waiving objection, that a search was ongoing. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants added a response referencing Kitsap and Clark County Reports, as well as Brady materials previously produced with Initial Disclosures. Id. at 19. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants assert the request should be struck and reiterate their arguments on objection and provide detail on the parties’ dispute with respect to clarifying and/or narrowing the scope of this request. Dkt. 72 at 11–12. They add that, to the extent the Kitsap and Clark County Reports have been identified, they are responsive to the request. Id. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 29, let alone explain how the information sought is relevant or proportional.

See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 29 is denied without prejudice. M. “Performance” 1. Interrogatory No. 5 and Request for Production No. 30

Interrogatory No. 5 asks Defendants to “[d]escribe in detail each communication about each plaintiff on the subject of his or her performance since January 2016. Include the date, time, place, and the name, title, and contact information for each person present.” Dkt. 73 at 19. RFP No. 30 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll documents viewed or considered when answering Interrogatory No. 5 to include documents of any such communication in native format with metadata.” Id. Defendants initially objected to both requests as overly broad and vague as “communications.” Id. They claimed the request is argumentative and may call for a legal

conclusion. Id. They also claimed the request is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants added, “[t]o the extent that this interrogatory request can be answered by review of each Plaintiff’s employment file already produced, that production is incorporated herein by reference.” Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants argue these requests have been answered. Dkt. 72 at 12. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference Interrogatory No. 5 or RFP No. 30 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their Reply argues that Defendants have “refused to answer . . . Rog. 5 (Description of each communication about Plaintiffs on the subject of Plaintiffs’ performance)” (Dkt. 74 at 4). Plaintiffs do not indicate what exactly they believe is missing or, in the alternative, provide substantive argument for why

the Court should compel Defendants to produce information over their objections. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74 at 4. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to Interrogatory No. 5 and RFP No. 30 is denied without prejudice. 2. Request for Production No. 31

RFP No. 31 asks Defendants to produce “[e]ach document finding any plaintiff dishonest or not credible.” Dkt. 73 at 19. Defendants objected to the request as overly broad and vague as “dishonest” or “credible.” Id. They claimed the discovery request is argumentative and may call for a legal conclusion. Id. They also claimed the request is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. Defendants added, without waiving objection, that a search was ongoing. Id. However, they noted that, “[t]o the extent that Brady disclosure material may be responsive, which has already been produced, see Initial Disclosures.” Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants note RFP No. 31 has been answered, but argue the request

should be struck because it pertains directly to the Brady/PIE investigation. Dkt. 72 at 12. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 31 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their Reply argues that Defendants have “failed to identify or produce information responsive to . . . RFP 31 (Documents finding Plaintiffs dishonest or not credible)” (Dkt. 74 at 4). Plaintiffs do not indicate what exactly they believe is missing or, in the alternative, provide substantive argument for why the Court should compel Defendants to produce information over their objections. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74 at 4. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 31 is denied without prejudice. 3. Request for Production No. 32

RFP No. 32 asks Defendants to produce “[e]ach document finding any named defendant dishonest or not credible.” Dkt. 73 at 19. Defendants objected to the request as overly broad and vague as “dishonest” or “credible.” Id. They claimed the discovery request is argumentative and may call for a legal conclusion. Id. They also claimed the request is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. Defendants added, without waiving objection, that a search was ongoing. Id. However, they noted that, “[t]o the extent that Brady disclosure material may be responsive, which has already been produced, see Initial Disclosures.” Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants note RFP No. 32 has been answered, but argue the request should be struck because it pertains directly to the Brady/PIE investigation. Dkt. 72 at 12.

In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 32 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their Reply argues that Defendants have “failed to identify or produce information responsive to . . . RFP 32 (Documents finding any named Defendant dishonest or not credible)” (Dkt. 74 at 4). Plaintiffs do not indicate what exactly they

believe is missing or, in the alternative, provide substantive argument for why the Court should compel Defendants to produce information over their objections. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74 at 4. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 32 is denied without prejudice. 4. Request for Production No. 33

RFP No. 33 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ny document where any plaintiff’s credibility may be questioned or a document that may be used to call into question any plaintiff’s propensity to tell the truth.” Dkt. 73 at 20. Defendants objected to the request as overly broad and vague as “credibility.” Id. They claimed the discovery request is argumentative and may call for a legal conclusion. Id. They also claimed the request is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. Defendants added, without waiving objection, that a search was ongoing. Id. However, they noted that, “[t]o the extent that Brady disclosure material may be responsive, which has already been produced, see Initial Disclosures.” Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants added a response including PCSD investigation files. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants note RFP No. 33 has been answered, but argue the request should be struck because it pertains directly to the Brady/PIE investigation. Dkt. 72 at 12. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 33, let alone explain how the information sought is relevant or proportional. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further

respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 33 is denied without prejudice. 5. Interrogatory No. 6 and Request for Production No. 34

Interrogatory No. 6 asks Defendants to “[d]escribe your decision to shut down Pierce County Sheriff’s Department Special Investigations Unit each time you shut it down. Include in your description, the identity of each final decision-making authority for each decision.” Dkt. 73 at 20. RFP No. 34 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll documents viewed or considered when answering Interrogatory No. 6.” Id. at 21. Defendants initially objected to the requests as overly broad and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. at 20–21. Defendants added, without waiving objection, that a search was ongoing. Id. at 20. In a supplemental answer, Defendants added details with respect to the first and second suspension of SIU operations, including the identity of the individual who suspended SIU operations. Id. at 20–21. They also referred to “Plt. Initial Disclosures, Mary Robnett 7/15/2020 email.” Id. at 21. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants note the requests have been answered. Dkt. 72 at 5, 12.

In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference Interrogatory No. 6 or RFP No. 34 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their Reply argues that Defendants have “refused to answer . . . Rog. 6 (Identification of the decision maker who shut down the SUI [sic])” (Dkt. 74 at 4). Plaintiffs do not indicate exactly what they believe is missing at this point or, in the alternative, provide substantive argument for why the Court should compel Defendants to produce information over their objections. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to Interrogatory No. 6 and RFP No. 34 is denied without prejudice.

6. Request for Production No. 35

RFP No. 35 asks Defendants to produce “[d]ocuments reflecting Pierce County Sheriff’s Department Special Investigations Unit statistics on enforcement activities from 2015 to date.” Dkt. 73 at 21. Defendants initially objected to the requests as overly broad and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. at 21. Defendants added, without waiving objection, that a search was ongoing. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants added a response including SIU Stats for the years 2015 through 2022. Id. at 21–22. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants note RFP No. 35 has been answered. Dkt. 72 at 12. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 35, let alone explain how the information sought is relevant or proportional. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 35 is denied without prejudice. N. “Investigations”

1. Interrogatory No. 7 and Request for Production No. 36 Interrogatory No. 7 asks Defendants to “[d]escribe what the investigations were ‘for the SIU investigative files’ referenced in defendant Schacht’s e-mail Bates No. ‘Plntffs000052’ at Appendix J of the Complaint and as to each provide a detailed chronology of each and every action taken with regard to any such investigation.” Dkt. 73 at 22. RFP No. 36 asks Defendants to produce “[d]ocuments viewed or considered when answering Interrogatory No. 7.” Id. Defendants objected to the requests as overly broad and “improper contention.” Id. They also noted that claims involving Brady/PIE evidence have been dismissed. Id. However, they further responded that “the subject email speaks for itself.” Id. In their Response to the Motion to

Compel, Defendants note RFP No. 36 has been answered, but argue the request should be struck because it pertains directly to the Brady/PIE investigation. Dkt. 72 at 12. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference Interrogatory No. 7 or RFP No. 36 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their Reply argues that

Defendants have “refused to answer . . . Rog. 7 (Description of any investigation for the ‘SIU investigative files’ as referenced at App. J)” (Dkt. 74 at 4). Plaintiffs do not indicate exactly what they believe is missing at this point or, in the alternative, provide substantive argument for why the Court should compel Defendants to produce information over their objections. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to Interrogatory No. 7 and RFP No. 36 is denied without prejudice. 2. Interrogatory No. 8 and Request for Production No. 37 Interrogatory No. 8 asks Defendants to “[d]escribe each and every fact that caused you to place any named plaintiff under suspicion or investigation of criminal misconduct.” Dkt. 73 at

22. RFP No. 37 asks Defendants to produce “[d]ocuments viewed or considered when answering Interrogatory No. 8.” Id. Defendants initially objected to the requests as overly broad, argumentative and may call for a legal conclusion. Id. The claimed the request is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, but added, without waiving objection, that a search was ongoing. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants added a response stating, “See response to Request for Production No. 28, Schacht documents and notes, Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d). To the extent that additional information may apply, see Brady material and Clark and Kitsap County Reports.” Id. In the Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants note RFP No. 37 has been

answered, but argue the request should be struck because it pertains directly to the Brady/PIE investigation. Dkt. 72 at 12. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference Interrogatory No. 8 or RFP No. 37 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their Reply argues that

Defendants have “failed to identify or produce information responsive to . . . RFP 37 (Documents considered when answering Rog. [8] about reasons for investigating Plaintiffs criminally)” (Dkt. 74 at 4). They also argue Defendants “refused to answer . . . Rog. 8 (Facts causing criminal investigation of Plaintiffs).” Id. at 4–5. Plaintiffs do not indicate exactly what they believe is missing at this point, or, in the alternative, provide substantive argument for why the Court should compel Defendants to produce information over their objections. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to Interrogatory No. 8 and RFP No. 37 is denied without prejudice. 3. Interrogatory No. 9 and Request for Production No. 38

Interrogatory No. 9 asks Defendants to “[d]escribe each and every fact that caused you to place any named plaintiff under suspicion or investigation of civil misconduct or violation of department policy, procedure, or protocol.” Dkt. 73 at 22. RFP No. 38 asked Defendants to produce “[d]ocuments viewed or considered when answering Interrogatory No. 9.” Id. at 23. Defendants initially objected to the requests as overly broad and vague as to “each and every fact.” Id. They claimed the requests are argumentative and may call for a legal conclusion. Id. They also claim the requests are not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, but added, without waiving objection, that a search was ongoing. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants objected to the request as vague as to “civil misconduct,” but further responded, “[t]o

the extent that materials produced in response to RFP 28 may apply, see Kitsap County and Clark County reports. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d).” Id. at 23. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants note RFP No. 38 has been answered, but argue the request should be struck because it pertains directly to the Brady/PIE investigation. Dkt. 72 at 12.

In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference Interrogatory No. 9 or RFP No. 38 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their Reply argues that Defendants have “failed to identify or produce information responsive to . . . RFP 38 (Documents considered when answering Rog. [9] about reasons for investigating Plaintiffs for civil misconduct)” (Dkt. 74 at 4). They also argue Defendants “refused to answer . . . Rog. 9 (Facts causing civil investigation of Plaintiffs).” Id. at 5. Plaintiffs do not indicate exactly what they believe is missing at this point or, in the alternative, provide substantive argument for why the Court should compel Defendants to produce information over their objections. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to Interrogatory No. 9 and

RFP No. 38 is denied without prejudice. 4. Interrogatory No. 10 and Request for Production No. 39 Interrogatory No. 10 asks Defendants to “[d]escribe each document any defendant reviewed or relied upon to formulate any opinions regarding the Wales investigation and associated warrants.” Dkt. 73 at 23. RFP No. 39 asks Defendants to produce “[d]ocuments viewed or considered when answering Interrogatory No. 10.” Id. at 23. Defendants initially objected to the requests as overly broad and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. However, without waiving objection, they added a search was ongoing. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants objected based on the fact that claims involving Brady/PIE

evidence have been dismissed, and the request, as it may relate to PERC/labor grievance matters, is no longer relevant to the remaining claims. Id. However, Defendants added a response including PCSD investigation files. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants note RFP No. 39 has been answered, but argue the request should be struck because it pertains

directly to the Brady/PIE investigation and Plaintiff Darby’s PERC/labor grievance matter. Dkt. 72 at 12. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference Interrogatory No. 10 or RFP No. 39 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their Reply argues that Defendants have “refused to answer . . . Rog. 10 (Description of each document reviewed to formulate an opinion about Wales investigation and associated warrants)” (Dkt. 74 at 5). Plaintiffs do not indicate exactly what they believe is missing at this point or, in the alternative, provide substantive argument for why the Court should compel Defendants to produce information over their objections. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling

Defendants to respond to Interrogatory No. 10 and RFP No. 39 is denied without prejudice. 5. Request for Production No. 40 RFP No. 40 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ny document on non-verbal consent to enter a residence to make an arrest without a warrant.” Dkt. 73 at 23. Defendants initially objected to the request as overly broad and not likely to lead the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. However, they added, without waiving objection, that a search was ongoing. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants objected based on the fact that claims involving Brady/PIE evidence have been dismissed, but further responded with reference to PCSD Policy 322. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants note RFP No. 40 has been answered, but

argue the request should be struck because it pertains directly to the Brady/PIE investigation and is duplicative of RFP Nos. 13 and 37. Dkt. 72 at 12. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 40 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their Reply argues that Defendants have “failed

to identify or produce information responsive to . . . RFP 40 (Documents on non-verbal consent to enter a residence to make an arrest without a warrant)” (Dkt. 74 at 4). Plaintiffs do not indicate what exactly they believe is missing or, in the alternative, provide substantive argument for why the Court should compel Defendants to produce information over their objections. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74 at 4. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 40 is denied without prejudice. 6. Request for Production No. 41 RFP No. 41 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll documents associated with any investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigations into any actions by any named plaintiff.”

Dkt. 73 at 24. Defendants initially objected to the request as overly broad and not likely to lead the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. However, they added, without waiving objection, that a search was ongoing. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants objected based on the fact that claims involving Brady/PIE evidence have been dismissed, and further noted the request is duplicative of RFP Nos. 13 and 37. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants note RFP No. 41 has been answered, but argue the request should be struck because it pertains directly to the Brady/PIE investigation and is duplicative of RFP Nos. 13 and 37. Dkt. 72 at 12. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 41 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their Reply argues that Defendants have “failed

to identify or produce information responsive to . . . RFP 41 (Documents associated with FBI investigations into Plaintiffs, missing communications)” (Dkt. 74 at 4). Plaintiffs do not indicate what exactly they believe is missing or, in the alternative, provide substantive argument for why the Court should compel Defendants to produce information over their objections. See Dkts. 62;

63, Ex. F; 74 at 4. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 41 is denied without prejudice. 7. Request for Production No. 42 RFP No. 42 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll documents showing when or if reports were locked or unlocked on any investigation by Pierce County Special Investigations Unit for the past ten years. Include all metadata showing dates when the Peres file was locked or unlocked. Dkt. 73 at 24. Defendants initially objected to the request as overly broad and not likely to lead the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. However, they added, without waiving objection, that a search was ongoing. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants objected based

on the fact that claims involving Brady/PIE evidence have been dismissed, but further responded with “See document produced by Pierce County Defendants as follows: Persons Allowed List; Adamson Def. PC 420962-420963.” Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants note RFP No. 42 has been answered, but argue the request should be struck because it pertains directly to the Brady/PIE investigation and is duplicative of RFP Nos. 13 and 37. Dkt. 72 at 12. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 42 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their Reply argues that Defendants have “failed to identify or produce information responsive to . . . RFP 42 (Documents showing when or if reports were locked or unlocked by SIU, unresponsive records only)” (Dkt. 74 at 4). Plaintiffs do

not indicate what exactly they believe is missing at this point, or, in the alternative, provide substantive argument for why the Court should compel Defendants to produce information over their objections. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74 at 4. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to

respond to RFP No. 42 is denied without prejudice. 8. Request for Production No. 43 RFP No. 43 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll documents you claim are faux or fabricated reports from Peres or Benitez.” Dkt. 73 at 24. Defendants initially objected to the request as overly broad, vague as to “faux” or “fabricated,” and not likely to lead the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. They also sought clarification regarding identification of “Peres” and “Benitez.” Id. However, they added, without waiving objection, that a search was ongoing. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants objected based on the fact that claims involving Brady/PIE evidence have been dismissed. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants note RFP No. 43 has been answered, but argue the request should be struck because it pertains

directly to the Brady/PIE investigation and is duplicative of RFP Nos. 13 and 37. Dkt. 72 at 12. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 43 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their Reply argues that Defendants have “failed to identify or produce information responsive to . . . RFP 43 (All documents Pierce County claims were fabrication or faux reports from Peres or Benitez)” (Dkt. 74 at 4). Plaintiffs do not indicate what exactly they believe is missing or, in the alternative, provide substantive argument for why the Court should compel Defendants to produce information over their objections. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74 at 4. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further

respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 43 is denied without prejudice. 9. Request for Production No. 44 RFP No. 44 asks Defendants to produce “[t]he complete Pierce County Sheriff’s

Department investigation files for any case listed by Defendant Schacht in his letter at Appendix H of the Complaint.” Dkt. 73 at 24. Defendants initially objected to the request as overly broad and not likely to lead the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. However, they added, without waiving objection, that a search was ongoing. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants objected based on the fact that claims involving Brady/PIE evidence have been dismissed. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants note RFP No. 44 has been answered, but argue the request should be struck because it pertains directly to the Brady/PIE investigation and is duplicative of RFP Nos. 13 and 37. Dkt. 72 at 12. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 44 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their Reply argues that Defendants have “failed

to identify or produce information responsive to . . . RFP 44 (Complete Sheriff’s Department investigation files for all cases listed in Appendix H to the Complaint)” (Dkt. 74 at 4). Plaintiffs do not indicate what exactly they believe is missing or, in the alternative, provide substantive argument for why the Court should compel Defendants to produce information over their objections. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74 at 4. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 44 is denied without prejudice.

10. Request for Production No. 45 RFP No. 45 asks Defendants to produce “[t]he complete investigation files for any investigation where any plaintiff was either a suspect, subject, or witness. Include all audio recordings, if any.” Dkt. 73 at 25. Defendants initially objected to the request as overly broad,

vague as to time frame, and not likely to lead the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. They also sought clarification regarding time frame. Id. However, they added, without waiving objection, that a search was ongoing. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants objected based on the fact that claims involving Brady/PIE evidence have been dismissed. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants note RFP No. 45 has been answered, but argue the request should be struck because it pertains directly to the Brady/PIE investigation and is duplicative of RFP Nos. 13 and 37. Dkt. 72 at 12. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 45 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their Reply argues that Defendants have “failed to identify or produce information responsive to . . . RFP 45 (Complete investigation files

involving Plaintiffs)” (Dkt. 74 at 4). Plaintiffs do not indicate what exactly they believe is missing, or, in the alternative, provide substantive argument for why the Court should compel Defendants to produce information over their objections. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74 at 4. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 45 is denied without prejudice. O. “Policies, Procedures, Protocols and Standards” 1. Request for Production No. 46 RFP No. 46 asks Defendants to produce “Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office policies, protocols, procedures, or standards for narcotics investigations.” Dkt. 73 at 25.

Defendants initially objected to the request as overly broad and not likely to lead the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. However, they added, without waiving objection, that a search was ongoing. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants added a reference to RFP No. 47. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants note RFP No. 46 has been answered, but argue

the request should be struck because it pertains directly to the Brady/PIE investigation and is duplicative of RFP Nos. 13 and 37. Dkt. 72 at 12. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 46, let alone explain how the information sought is relevant or proportional. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 46 is denied without prejudice. 2. Request for Production No. 47 RFP No. 47 asks Defendants to produce “Pierce County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office policies, protocols, procedures, or standards for sources or confidential informants.” Dkt. 73 at

25. Defendants initially objected to the request as overly broad and not likely to lead the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. However, they added, without waiving objection, that a search was ongoing. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants added a response with the following documents produced by Pierce County: two sections of Senate Bill 5714 Informants, and Search Warrant/Confidential Informant Protocols. Id. at 25–26. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants note RFP No. 47 has been answered, but argue the request should be struck because it pertains directly to the Brady/PIE investigation and is duplicative of RFP Nos. 13 and 37. Dkt. 72 at 12.

In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 47, let alone explain how the information sought is relevant or proportional. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 47

is denied without prejudice. 3. Request for Production No. 48 RFP No. 48 asks Defendants to produce “Pierce County Sheriff’s Department policies, protocols, procedures, or standards for narcotics or investigations undertaken by its Special Investigations Unit.” Dkt. 73 at 26. Defendants initially objected to the request as overly broad and not likely to lead the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. However, they added, without waiving objection, that a search was ongoing. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants added a response with the following documents produced by Pierce County: Policy 606, Asset Forfeiture; Policy 407, Incident Command System (ICS); Policy 617, Operations Planning and Deconfliction; Policy 804, Property and Evidence; PCSD SIU Policy & Procedure Manual; and

Policy 408, Special Weapons and Tactics. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants note RFP No. 48 has been answered, but argue the request should be struck because it pertains directly to the Brady/PIE investigation and is duplicative of RFP Nos. 13 and 37. Dkt. 72 at 12. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 48, let alone explain how the information sought is relevant or proportional. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 48 is denied without prejudice.

4. Request for Production No. 49 RFP No. 49 asks Defendants to produce “Pierce County Sheriff’s Department policies, protocols, procedures, or standards for sources or confidential informants.” Dkt. 73 at 26. Defendants initially objected to the request as overly broad and not likely to lead the discovery of

admissible evidence. Id. However, they added, without waiving objection, that a search was ongoing. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants added a response with the following document produced by Pierce County: Policy 608, Confidential Informants. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants note RFP No. 49 has been answered, but argue the request should be struck because it pertains directly to the Brady/PIE investigation and is duplicative of RFP Nos. 13 and 37. Dkt. 72 at 12. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 49, let alone explain how the information sought is relevant or proportional. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 49

is denied without prejudice. 5. Request for Production No. 50 RFP No. 50 asks Defendants to produce “[p]olicies, procedures, or standards applicable to warrants.” Dkt. 73 at 26. Defendants initially objected to the request as overly broad and not likely to lead the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. at 27. However, they added, without waiving objection, that a search was ongoing. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants added a response with the following documents produced by Pierce County: Policy 301, Arrests; and Policy 616, Warrant Service. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants note

RFP No. 50 has been answered, but argue the request should be struck because it pertains directly to the Brady/PIE investigation and is duplicative of RFP Nos. 13 and 37. Dkt. 72 at 12. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 50, let alone explain how the information sought is relevant or proportional.

See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 50 is denied without prejudice. P. “Employment Records” 1. Request for Production No. 51 RFP No. 51 asks Defendants to produce “[c]omplete personnel files for each named plaintiff.” Dkt. 73 at 27. Defendants initially indicated that their response would be supplemented. Id. In two supplemental answers, Defendants provided personnel files for all of the named Plaintiffs. See id. at 27–28. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants note RFP No. 51 has been answered. Dkt. 72 at 12.

In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 51, let alone explain how the information sought is relevant or proportional. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 51 is denied without prejudice. 2. Request for Production No. 52 RFP No. 52 asks Defendants to produce “”[c]omplete personnel files for each individually named defendant (Pastor, and Bomkamp).” Dkt. 73 at 28. Defendants initially objected to the request as overly broad and not likely to lead the discovery of admissible

evidence. Id. They also indicated that the parties should discuss production subject to a protective order. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants provided Defendant Pastor and Bomkamp’s personnel files and HR personnel files. Id. at 28–29. The Court notes this material is now subject to a Stipulated Protective Order. See Dkt. 58. In their Response to the Motion to

Compel, Defendants note RFP No. 52 has been answered. Dkt. 72 at 12. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 52, let alone explain how the information sought is relevant or proportional. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 52 is denied without prejudice. 3. Request for Production No. 53 RFP No. 53 asks Defendants to produce “[c]omplete disciplinary files for each named plaintiff.” Dkt. 73 at 29. Defendants initially indicated that their response would be supplemented. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants referred to the supplemental answer

provided to RFP No. 17. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants note RFP No. 53 has been answered. Dkt. 72 at 12. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 53, let alone explain how the information sought is relevant or proportional. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 53 is denied without prejudice.

4. Request for Production No. 54 RFP No. 54 asks Defendants to produce “[c]omplete disciplinary files for each individually named defendant (Pastor, and Bomkamp).” Dkt. 73 at 29. Defendants objected to the request as overly broad and not likely to lead the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. They

also asserted that the request was “invasive of the individual Defendant’s right to privacy and raises concerns regarding officer safety. Moreover, requests for disciplinary information into a government worker’s personnel files are privileged and not subject to discovery with the exception of documents evidencing disciplinary action concerning matters related to the underlying lawsuit.” Id. The Court notes this material is now subject to a Stipulated Protective Order. See Dkt. 58. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants note RFP No. 54 has been answered. Dkt. 72 at 12. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 54 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their Reply argues that Defendants have “failed to identify or produce information responsive to . . . RFP 54 (Complete disciplinary files for

Defendants Pastor and Bomkamp)” (Dkt. 74 at 4). Plaintiffs do not indicate what exactly they believe is missing or, in the alternative, provide substantive argument for why the Court should compel Defendants to produce information over their objections. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74 at 4. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 54 is denied without prejudice. 5. Request for Production No. 55 RFP No. 55 asks Defendants to produce “[c]omplete payroll records for each named plaintiff.” Dkt. 73 at 29. Defendants initially indicated that their response would be supplemented. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants provided payroll records for all of the

named Plaintiffs. Id. at 29–30. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants note RFP No. 54 has been answered. Dkt. 72 at 12. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 55, let alone explain how the information sought is relevant or proportional.

See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 55 is denied without prejudice. Q. “HR Files” 1. Request for Production No. 56 RFP No. 56 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll documents in Pierce County Human Resources for any complaint, action, investigation, contact, review, appeal, grievance involving any named plaintiff or defendant.” Dkt. 73 at 30. Defendants initially indicated that their response would be supplemented, “as it relates to a request for Plaintiff Fajardo’s records. As this discovery request may relate to any named Defendant, see answer to Request for Production

No. 54.” Id. In two supplemental answers, Defendants provided Plaintiff Fajardo’s HR Personnel file and referred to the documents in response to RFP No. 51, respectively. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants note RFP No. 56 has been answered. Dkt. 72 at 12. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 56, let alone explain how the information sought is relevant or proportional. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 56 is denied without prejudice.

2. Request for Production No. 57 RFP No. 57 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll documents from files and records created by or in the possession of Joe Carrillo with respect to any named plaintiff.” Dkt. 73 at 30. Defendants initially indicated that their response would be supplemented. Id. In a supplemental

response, Defendants objected to the request as not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and argued it is not related to Plaintiffs’ current claims. Id. However, without waiving the objection, Defendants responded with a set of email communications produced by Pierce County. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants further objected to the request as follows: The discovery request seeks documents from files and records created by or in the possession of Joe Carrillo with respect to any named plaintiff. Joe Carrillo was a former Pierce County Human Resource manager and he was mostly, if not only, involved in the PERC/labor grievances filed by Plaintiffs Riegle, Darby, and Fajardo. Information from Joe Carrillo is not relevant to the remaining claims in this lawsuit. Dkt. 72 at 12. They also assert the request should be struck. Id. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 57, let alone explain how the information sought is relevant or proportional. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 57 is denied without prejudice. R. “Publications – Media” 1. Request for Production No. 58 RFP No. 58 asks Defendants to produce “[e]ach and every document that communicates with The News Tribune or any other media contact information about any plaintiff or Pierce County Special Investigations Unit from 2019 to present.” Dkt. 73 at 31. Defendants initially objected to the request as overly broad and vague as to “other media contact.” Id. However, without waiving the objection, and limiting an answer to 2019 to the date of the Complaint, Defendants added that a search was ongoing. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants provided media communications (PDF & Native formats) produced by Pierce County. Id. In their

Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants note RFP No. 58 has been answered. Dkt. 72 at 12. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 58 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their Reply argues that Defendants have “failed to identify or produce information responsive to . . . RFP 58 (Media communications from Sheriff’s Department with TNT)” (Dkt. 74 at 4). Plaintiffs do not indicate what exactly they believe is missing at this point or, in the alternative, provide substantive argument for why the Court should compel Defendants to produce information over their objections. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74 at 4. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 58 is denied

without prejudice. 2. Request for Production No. 59 RFP No. 59 asks Defendants to produce “”[e]ach document providing any media person information about your closure and the status of Pierce County Sheriff’s Department Special Investigations Unite from 2019 to date. Include all e-mail, attachments, messaging and texts in native format with any media reporter.” Dkt. 73 at 31. Defendants initially objected to the request as overly broad and vague as to “media person.” Id. However, without waiving the objection, and limiting an answer to 2019 to the date of the Complaint, Defendants added that a search was ongoing. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants provided media communications

(PDF & Native formats) produced by Pierce County. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants note RFP No. 59 has been answered. Dkt. 72 at 12. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 59 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their Reply argues that Defendants have “failed

to identify or produce information responsive to . . . RFP 59 (Media communications to any media about Plaintiffs)” (Dkt. 74 at 4). Plaintiffs do not indicate what exactly they believe is missing at this point or, in the alternative, provide substantive argument for why the Court should compel Defendants to produce information over their objections. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74 at 4. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 59 is denied without prejudice. S. “Retention” 1. Request for Production No. 60 RFP No. 60 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll documents showing compliance with

retention schedules for content from technologies used by any named defendant from 2019 to the present. This is intended to capture documents showing retention of communications to and from named defendants.” Dkt. 73 at 31. Defendants initially objected to this request as overly broad and vague as to any Pierce County Department. Id. However, and without waiving the objection, they added a search was ongoing. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants reiterated their objection, adding that the request is not relevant, is disproportionate to the remaining claims, and relates to other matters, including but not limited to Public Records Requests. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants again reiterate their objection and argue the request should be struck. Dkt. 72 at 12.

In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 60 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their Reply argues that Defendants have “failed to identify or produce information responsive to . . . RFP 60 (Retention scheduled compliance)” (Dkt. 74 at 4). Plaintiffs do not indicate what exactly they believe is missing, do not respond to

Defendants’ arguments regarding public records requests, or explain how the information sought is relevant or proportional. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74 at 4. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 60 is denied without prejudice. T. “Campaign for Sheriff” 1. Request for Production No. 61 RFP No. 61 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll documents about Pierce County Sheriff’s Department election in 2020 that mention or reference any plaintiff or support or opposition for either candidate.” Dkt. 73 at 32. Defendants initially objected to the request as overly broad and vague as to “all documents,” and the terms “support” or “opposition.” Id. They also sought

clarification regarding the time frame in 2020. Id. However, without waiving the objection, Defendants added that a search was ongoing. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants provided a Facebook page, Endorsement of Troyer for Sheriff, as produced by Pierce County. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants note RFP No. 61 has been answered. Dkt. 72 at 12. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 61, let alone explain how the information sought is relevant or proportional. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further

respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 61 is denied without prejudice. 2. Interrogatory No. 11 Interrogatory No. 11 asks Defendants to “[s]tate who each named defendant voted for in

the Sheriff’s Department election in 2020 in both the primary and final election.” Dkt. 73 at 32. Defendants initially objected to the request as overly broad and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. They also asserted the request is invasive of the individual Defendant’s right to privacy and raises concerns regarding officer safety and harassment. Id. However, without waiving the objection, Defendants added that an answer may be supplemented. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants provided the following information: Pastor: Troyer; Bomkamp: Troyer. Id. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference Interrogatory No. 11, let alone explain how the information sought is relevant or proportional. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to

further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to Interrogatory No. 11 is denied without prejudice. 3. Request for Production No. 62 RFP No. 62 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll documents reflecting campaign support for Pierce County Sheriff in 2020 either in kind or financial by any named defendant. Include any and all documents that reflect communications supportive of any candidate such as endorsements, mailers, e-mail, texts, etc.” Dkt. 73 at 32. Defendants initially objected to the request as overly broad and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. They also asserted the request is invasive of the individual Defendant’s right to privacy and raises

concerns regarding officer safety and harassment. Id. However, without waiving the objection, Defendants added that an answer may be supplemented. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants referenced the responsive document produced for RFP No. 61. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants note RFP No. 62 has been answered. Dkt. 72 at 13.

In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 62, let alone explain how the information sought is relevant or proportional. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 62 is denied without prejudice. U. “Calendars” 1. Request for Production No. 63 RFP No. 63 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll documents that contain Outlook calendar entries for any meeting involving SIU or its members, or with content involving SIU or any member of SIU from 2019 to the present.” Dkt. 73 at 32. Defendants initially objected to the

request as overly broad, vague as to identification of a Pierce County department, and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. at 33. They also sought clarification regarding the identification of a Pierce County department. Id. However, without waiving the objection, and limiting an answer to 2019 to the date of the Complaint, Defendants added that a search was ongoing. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants further objected to the extent the request pertains to Brady/PIE matters, and to Plaintiffs Darby, Fajardo, and Riegle PERC/labor grievance matters. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants reiterate their objections and assert the request should be struck. Dkt. 72 at 13.

In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 63 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their Reply argues that Defendants have “failed to identify or produce information responsive to . . . RFP 63 (Outlook calendar entries specific to meetings involving SIU)” (Dkt. 74 at 4). Plaintiffs do not indicate what exactly they believe is

missing or, in the alternative, provide substantive argument for why the Court should compel Defendants to produce information over their objections. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74 at 4. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 63 is denied without prejudice. V. Request for Production No. 64: “Documents Obtained in Discovery” RFP No. 64 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ll documents obtained in response to any subpoena or release.” Dkt. 73 at 33. Defendants objected that the request is “not applicable.” Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants note RFP No. 64 has been answered. Dkt. 72 at 13. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically

reference RFP No. 64, let alone explain how the information sought is relevant or proportional. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 64 is denied without prejudice. W. “Documents Responsive to Searches of ESI” 1. Request for Production No. 65 RFP No. 65 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ny documents, specifically notes involving Special Investigations Unit and its members Fajardo, Adamson, Nicodemus, Darby, Reigle, Raynor, Dickerson, Nordstrom, Bray, Maas, Neilson, Olivarez, and Cole from 2019 to present.”

Dkt. 73 at 33. Defendants initially objected to the request as overly broad, vague as to identification of a Pierce County department, and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. at 33. They also sought clarification regarding the identification of a Pierce County department. Id. However, without waiving the objection, and limiting an answer to 2019 to the

date of the Complaint, Defendants added that a search was ongoing. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants further objected to the request as duplicative of other requests. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants reiterate their objections and assert the request should be struck. Dkt. 72 at 13. In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 65 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their Reply argues that Defendants have “failed to identify or produce information responsive to . . . RFP 65 (Notes involving SIU members from 2019 to present)” (Dkt. 74 at 4). Plaintiffs do not indicate what exactly they believe is missing or, in the alternative, provide substantive argument for why the Court should compel Defendants to produce information over their objections. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74 at 4. Without more, the

Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 65 is denied without prejudice. 2. Request for Production No. 66 RFP No. 66 asks Defendants to produce “[a]ny documents, notes, or e-mail concerning locked reports; faux, fake, or fabricated reports; charging interviews; FBI; profer; drug testing; or SIU Brady from 2019 to present.” Dkt. 73 at 33. Defendants initially objected to the request as overly broad, vague as to identification of a Pierce County department, and not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Id. at 33. They also sought clarification regarding the identification of a Pierce County department. Id. However, without waiving the objection, and

limiting an answer to 2019 to the date of the Complaint, Defendants added that a search was ongoing. Id. In a supplemental answer, Defendants further objected to the request as duplicative of other requests. Id. In their Response to the Motion to Compel, Defendants reiterate their objections and assert the request should be struck. Dkt. 72 at 13.

In the Motion to Compel and supporting documents, Plaintiffs do not specifically reference RFP No. 66 (Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F), but their Reply argues that Defendants have “failed to identify or produce information responsive to . . . RFP 66 (Misc. all documents from 2019 to present)” (Dkt. 74 at 4). Plaintiffs do not indicate what exactly they believe is missing or, in the alternative, provide substantive argument for why the Court should compel Defendants to produce information over their objections. See Dkts. 62; 63, Ex. F; 74 at 4. Without more, the Court will not require Defendants to further respond. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for an Order compelling Defendants to respond to RFP No. 66 is denied without prejudice. In connection with this Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs have requested sanctions be

imposed against Defendants. Dkt. 62 at 6–7. When a motion to compel is granted, sanctions in the form of “reasonable expenses” which includes attorney fees must be awarded against the party and attorney whose conduct necessitated the discovery motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). The presumption in favor of such awards serves a “deterrent function by discouraging unnecessary involvement by the court in discovery.” Marquis v. Chrysler Corp., 577 F.2d 624, 642 (9th Cir. 1978). But the Court must not order payment if the movant did not make a good faith attempt to confer, nondisclosure was substantially justified, or other circumstances make an award unjust. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(i)-(iii).

Here, the Motion to Compel is granted in part and denied in part. The Court declined to compel Defendants to respond to all discovery requests and declined to compel Defendants to produce all of the disputed documents. Further, the nondisclosures were substantially justified. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions is DENIED.

Based on the foregoing discussion, the Motion to Compel (Dkt. 62) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike (Dkt. 80) is DENIED. Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions (Dkt. 62 at 6–7) is DENIED. Dated this 30th day of June, 2023. A Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge