Barton v. Delfgauw

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 NATHEN W. BARTON, CASE NO. 3:21-cv-05610-DGE 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ON DISCOVERY 12 v. DISPUTE AND CALENDARING MOTIONS 13 JOE DELFGAUW et al., 14 Defendant. 15

16 The Court reviewed the Parties’ Joint Discovery Dispute. (Dkt. No. 489.) The Court 17 concludes that on balance, Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories are sufficiently 18 responsive, and ordering additional responses would only be dilatory at this stage. However, 19 Defendant’s signature fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(3), which 20 requires that answers to interrogatories must be produced “under oath.” The response is not 21 signed under penalty of perjury and only attests that Defendant answered “to the best of my 22 knowledge.” (Dkt. No. 489-1 at 8.) See Deseret Mgmt. Corp. v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. 571, 23 573 (2007) (holding that phrase “to the best of my knowledge” negated oath). Accordingly, 24 1 Defendant shall promptly re-produce his interrogatory responses with an attestation under oath 2 that complies with Rule 33. 3 The renewed discovery in this matter is now closed. Any dispositive motions must be 4 filed by July 14, 2025. Any responses are due July 28, 2025. The Clerk shall calendar this

5 event. 6 7 Dated this 24th day of June, 2025. 8 a 9 David G. Estudillo 10 United States District Judge

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24