Ashley Miller v. Economy Preferred Insurance Company, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05518-GJL 11 Plaintiff, v. ORDER DENYING IN PART 12 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO ECONOMY PREFERRED INSURANCE COMPEL AND DIRECTING 13 COMPANY, et al., SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING 14 Defendants.

15 Defendants Economy Preferred Insurance Company (“Economy”) and Foremost 16 Insurance Company Grand Rapids, Michigan (“Foremost”) (collectively, “Defendants”) move to 17 compel further responses to their interrogatories and requests for production sent to Plaintiff 18 Ashley Miller. Dkt. 35. Defendants ask the Court to overrule Plaintiff’s current objections to 19 those requests as waived because Plaintiff failed to timely respond. Id. In Plaintiff’s Response 20 (Dkt. 37) and Defendants’ Reply (Dkt. 39), the parties appear to dispute the scope of pre- 21 certification discovery. 22 Based on the Motion to Compel, Plaintiff’s Response (Dkt. 37), Defendants’ Reply (Dkt. 23 39), and the balance of the record, the Court DENIES in part the Motion to Compel (Dkt. 35), 24 1 as explained herein, and directs counsel for the parties to FILE supplemental briefing to define 2 the scope of the pre-certification discovery phase and that scope as applied to the discovery 3 requests at issue in Defendants’ Motion to Compel. 5 The parties are familiar with the claims and allegations underlying this case, and the

6 Court summarizes them here only in brief. On December 6, 2024, an uninsured driver struck 7 Plaintiff’s vehicle and caused significant physical damage. See Dkt. 1-2. At the time, Plaintiff 8 was covered by an automobile insurance policy held by Defendants that included an 9 underinsured motorist property damage (“UMPD”) policy. Id. Plaintiff alleges Defendants paid 10 for the physical repair of her vehicle but did not disclose to Plaintiff that her UMPD policy also 11 provided coverage for diminished value. Id. 12 On April 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint against 13 Defendants in Pierce County Superior Court for the State of Washington, alleging a single 14 breach of contract claim on behalf of a putative class as well as an individual Washington

15 Consumer Protection Act (“WCPA”) claim against Defendants. Dkt. 1-2. On June 12, 2025, 16 Defendants removed the matter to this Court asserting original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s class- 17 wide breach of contract claim under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 18 1332(d), and diversity jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s individual WCPA claim under 28 U.S.C. § 19 1332(a)(1). On July 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand challenging this Court’s subject 20 matter jurisdiction, specifically challenging whether Plaintiff’s claims reached the amount in 21 controversy threshold required for both CAFA and diversity jurisdiction. Dkt. 11. Defendants 22 opposed the Motion. Dkt. 15. After directing and receiving supplemental briefing, the Court 23 denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand on November 10, 2025. Dkt. 27. 24 1 After the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of that Order (see Dkt. 30), 2 the parties filed a Joint Status Report (“JSR”) on December 20, 2025, notifying the Court among 3 other things that they had participated in a Rule 26(f) conference on December 3, 2025. Dkt. 31 4 at 2–3. As a result of that conference, the parties requested the Court bifurcate discovery into two 5 phases, with the first phase relating to Plaintiff’s anticipated class certification motion and the

6 second phase addressing the “full merits discovery.” Id. On January 8, 2026, the Court entered 7 an Order adopting the parties’ proposed schedule for class-related discovery and class 8 certification briefing, and noted that further case schedule deadlines would be set after a ruling 9 on the anticipated motion for class certification. Dkt. 32. Accordingly, the current deadline for 10 completion of class-related expert discovery is February 26, 2027. Id. 11 According to Defendants, on December 19, 2025, they served on Plaintiff their first set of 12 interrogatories and Requests For Production (“RFP”). Dkt. 35 at 2. Plaintiff did not respond to 13 the requests by their due date on January 20, 2026. Id. After counsel for Defendants inquired 14 twice about the status of the responses via email, once on February 2, 2026, and again on

15 February 25, 2026, Plaintiff ultimately served responses and objections to the requests on March 16 3, 2026. Id. at 2–3. 17 However, on March 13, 2026, Defendants sent Plaintiff a deficiency letter outlining 18 concerns with Plaintiff’s responses and objections while also requesting a meet-and-confer. Id. at 19 3. After failing to receive a response, Defendants again reached out to Plaintiff on March 24, 20 2026, to schedule a meet-and-confer. Id. On April 2, 2026, Defendants emailed Plaintiff 21 regarding additional deficiencies to discuss at a meet-and-confer. Id. The parties conferred on 22 April 14, 2026, but were unable to reach an agreement with respect to Interrogatory Nos. 5, 12, 23 and 13 and RFP Nos. 37–43 and 45–51. Id. 24 1 On April 27, 2026, Defendants filed the instant Motion requesting the Court compel 2 Plaintiff to provide substantive answers and documents in response to the discovery requests 3 listed above. Dkt. 35. As a threshold matter, Defendants contend the Court should overrule any 4 objections to their discovery requests because Plaintiff waived such objections by failing to 5 timely respond and object to the requests. Id. at 4–5. Defendants further argue that Plaintiff

6 should be compelled to provide substantive responses to several interrogatories and requests for 7 production. Id. at 5–11. 8 For her part, Plaintiff contends there is no waiver because Defendants served their 9 requests before the filing of the JSR and entry of the Court’s January 8, 2026, Scheduling Order. 10 Dkt. 37 at 5–9. In the alternative, Plaintiff contends she has demonstrated good cause to excuse 11 the delay in responding to the requests. Id. at 9. Plaintiff further argues that the discovery 12 requests at issue “are merits issues bifurcated from class certification.” Id. at 7. 14 A. Waiver of Objections to Discovery Requests

15 It is undisputed that Plaintiff did not respond to Defendants’ December 19, 2025, 16 discovery requests until March 3, 2026, over two months past the deadline to respond. See Dkt. 17 35 at 4; Dkt. 37 at 2; Dkt. 36, J.M. Poligo Dec., Ex. A. Defendants ask the Court to overrule all 18 of Plaintiff’s objections as having been waived due to the delay. 19 Rule 34(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a party to whom a request is 20 directed to “respond in writing within 30 days after being served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(A). 21 The response must state either, that the document will be provided for inspection as requested, or 22 state an objection to the request, including the reasons. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B). Rule 23 33(b)(4), regarding responses to interrogatories, states “[a]ny ground not stated in a timely 24 1 objection is waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure.” Unlike Rule 33, Rule 2 34 does not provide that a responding party waives an objection not timely stated. Compare Fed. 3 R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) with Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C); see also Curtis v. Illumination Arts, Inc., 4 No. C12-0991JLR, 2013 WL 12069048, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 20, 2013). 5 Nonetheless, courts addressing the issue have concluded that “the same waiver provision

6 found in Rule 33(b)(4) applies to document requests under Rule 34.” Cargill, Inc. v. Ron Burge 7 Trucking, Inc., 284 F.R.D. 421, 424 (D. Minn.2012); see also Industrial Risk Insurers v. D.C. 8 Taylor Co., 2008 WL 2219932 (N.D. Iowa 2008) at *4. 9 The Court finds that the same waiver provision found in Rule 33(b)(4) applies to 10 document requests under Rule 34. Additionally, the Court finds good cause to excuse Plaintiff’s 11 late response. Although the parties dispute the timing of the deadline for responses to 12 Defendants’ December 19, 2025, discovery requests, there is no evidence Plaintiff acted in bad 13 faith or that Defendants have been prejudiced. Moreover, this is not a case where a party has not 14 responded despite court intervention or failed entirely to respond. Accordingly, the Court

15 DENIES Defendants’ request to overrule Plaintiff’s objections based on timeliness. 16 The Court reminds the parties that timeliness is a critical aspect of the discovery process. 17 The parties are strongly encouraged to meet and confer and to make good faith efforts to resolve 18 any discovery dispute before contacting the Court. 19 B. Motion to Compel 20 As noted above, this case is currently proceeding with a bifurcated discovery schedule. 21 See Dkt. 32. In light of this schedule, the early timing of the instant discovery dispute, and the 22 nature of Plaintiff’s objections that the discovery requests at issue “are merits issues[,]” the Court 23 finds it necessary to explore the scope of pre-certification discovery before deciding this Motion. 24 1 See Dkt. 37 at 7. By establishing the scope of pre-certification discovery at this time, the Court 2 strives to ensure all discovery in this case proceeds efficiently and effectively. 3 Turning to the instant Motion to Compel, the Court directs the parties to propose a scope 4 for the class certification discovery phase such that discovery is narrowly tailored to the 5 contested aspects of the certification inquiry under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The

6 parties should support their arguments with relevant case law and identify subject matters 7 relevant to each phase of the current bifurcated discovery schedule. The parties are further 8 directed to apply their proposed scope to each interrogatory and request for production at issue in 9 Defendants’ Motion to Compel (Dkt. 35) in support of why or why not the discovery request is 10 relevant to the certification inquiry and should be compelled. The parties should identify those 11 issues that are stipulated solely for the purposes of the class certification discovery phase, if any. 12 Lastly, the Court takes seriously the mandate that discovery must be proportional to the 13 needs of the case. The Court cautions that “[a]rbitrary insistence on the merits/class discovery 14 distinction sometimes thwarts the informed judicial assessment that current class certification

15 practice emphasizes.” See 21.14. Precertification Discovery, Ann. Manual Complex Lit. § 21.14 16 (4th ed.). Moreover, the parties should only file future motions to compel, motions for protective 17 orders, or requests for sanctions once the parties have exhausted their good faith efforts to 18 resolve the discovery dispute. 20 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Defendants’ request to overrule 21 Plaintiff’s objections to their discovery requests based on timeliness. Therefore, the Motion to 22 Compel (Dkt. 35) is DENIED in part. Further, as described herein, the Court ORDERS 23 supplemental briefing on the Motion to Compel (Dkt. 35) as follows: 24 1 1. Plaintiff shall FILE a supplemental brief by July 17, 2026. 2 2. Defendants shall FILE a response to Plaintiff’s supplemental brief by July 31, 3 2026. 4 3. Plaintiff may FILE a reply to Defendants’ response by August 7, 2026. 5 The Clerk shall RENOTE Defendants’ Motion to Compel (Dkt. 35) for consideration on

6 the Court’s calendar for August 7, 2026. 7 8 Dated this 26th day of June, 2026. 9 A 10 11 Grady J. Leupold United States Magistrate Judge 12

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