City of Seattle v. Monsanto Company

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT SEATTLE 8 CITY OF SEATTLE, a municipal corporation located in the County of King, 9 State of Washington, Case No. 2:16-cv-00107-RSL 10 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT 11 v. MONSANTO COMPANY’S MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE 12 MONSANTO COMPANY, SOLUTIA, TO MONSANTO COMPANY’S INC., and PHARMACIA SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES 13 CORPORATION, and Does 1 through 100, AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 18 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Monsanto Company’s Motion to 19 Compel Plaintiff City of Seattle to Respond to Defendant’s Special Interrogatories and 20 Requests for Production. Dkt. # 118. In this tort action, Plaintiff seeks relief from 21 Defendant and its predecessors under negligence and public nuisance theories for alleged 22 contamination in Seattle’s streets, stormwater, drainage, and waterways from Defendant’s 23 production of polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”). Dkt. #31 at ¶¶ 91-108, 130-137. In its 24 Motion to Compel, Defendant primarily requests documents supporting Plaintiff’s 25 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 26 MOTION TO COMPEL- 1 1 computation of damages initially requested in November 2017. Dkt. # 118 at 2. Plaintiff 2 argues in response that it has already produced many of the requested documents, that it 3 continues an arduous process of locating others, and that it plans to have turned over all 4 requested documents by November 1, 2019. Dkt. #120 at 2-6. However, in electronic 5 communication between all counsel and the Court on October 31, 2019, Plaintiff 6 indicated that it had not turned over all of the documents Defendant requests. Plaintiff 7 promised to have completed the production by November 8, 2019. 8 Defendant has carried its burden in demonstrating the relevance of the requested 9 discovery. As the parties prepare for trial, Defendant must determine whether Plaintiff’s 10 computation of damages is accurate and adequately supported. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) (requiring a disclosing party to “make available for inspection and 12 copying as under Rule 34 the documents . . . on which each computation [of damages] is 13 based . . . “); City and Cnty. of San Francisco v. Tutor-Saliba Corp., 218 F.R.D. 219, 221 14 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (requiring Plaintiff to produce documents supporting its computation of 15 damages so that Defendant may “understand the contours of its potential exposure and 16 make informed decisions as to settlement”). Plaintiff responds that in producing over two 17 million documents, it has participated in the discovery process in “good faith.” Dkt. #120 18 at 7. However, the Rule requires more than good faith; it requires Plaintiff to make the 19 requested documents available for inspection and copying. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 26(a)(1)(A)(iii). 21 Plaintiff has had ample time to produce the documents Defendant requests, and on 22 which Plaintiff relied for its computation of damages. Plaintiff did not meet its own self- 23 imposed deadline of November 1, 2019 and indicated it would need another week to 24 produce the documents. 25 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 26 MOTION TO COMPEL- 2 1 In order to ensure both parties are able to adequately prepare for trial in September 2 2020, Plaintiff is ORDERED to produce the requested documents by its second self- 3 imposed deadline of November 8, 2019. Accordingly, Defendant Monsanto Company’s 4 Motion to Compel Plaintiff City of Seattle to Respond to Defendant’s Special 5 Interrogatories and Requests for Production is GRANTED. 6 7 DATED this 7th day of November, 2019. 8 9 A Robert S. Lasnik 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 26 MOTION TO COMPEL- 3