Gaekwar v. Amica Mutual Insurance Company

Opinion

1 The Honorable Barbara J. Rothstein

5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7

8 CHANDRASI GAEKWAR,

9 Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-1551-BJR v. 10

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 11 AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, SANCTIONS

12 Defendant.

14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 Plaintiff Chandrasi Gaekwar (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Defendant Amica 16 Mutual Insurance Company (“Amica”) for breach of contract, bad faith, and violation of the 17 Insurance Fair Conduct Act (“IFCA”), as well as the Washington Consumer Protection Act 18 19 (“WCPA”). Currently before the Court is Amica’s motion for sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule 20 of Civil Procedure 37. Dkt. No. 38. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Dkt. No. 41. Having reviewed 21 the motion, opposition thereto, the record of the case, and the relevant legal authority, the Court 22 will deny the motion. The reasoning for the Court’s decision follows. 23 II. BACKGROUND 24 Plaintiff sought discovery of Amica’s confidential and proprietary training materials as 25 part of this litigation and, with this Court’s encouragement, the parties agreed on a protective 26 27 order limiting the dissemination of the foregoing materials. Among other limitations, the 1 protective order required that if any party intended to file the confidential materials with the 2 Court, “[a]dvance notice of the intent to so file documents shall be given to the other parties 3 hereto at least nine court days before the same are filed in order to give any party the right to 4 move for an order to seal any such documents.” Dkt. No. 16 at 2. The protective order was drafted 5 by Plaintiff’s counsel. 6 7 At 12:02 pm on August 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed a declaration in support of his opposition 8 to Amica’s motion for partial summary judgment. Several exhibits attached to the declaration 9 were comprised of documents from Amica’s confidential training materials. Amica’s counsel 10 emailed Plaintiff’s counsel at 1:19 pm requesting that he withdraw the confidential materials. 11 Plaintiff’s counsel responded at 2:36 pm, asserting that the privilege had been waived, but at 3:19 12 pm filed a revised declaration that did not include the confidential materials. Thereafter, 13 Plaintiff’s counsel drafted a stipulated motion to seal the confidential documents and sent the 14 15 proposed stipulation to Amica’s counsel. Amica’s counsel revised the stipulated motion, and it 16 was filed at 9:43 am on September 1, 2023. The motion was granted and an order sealing the 17 documents was entered that same day. 18 III. DISCUSSION 19 Amica moves this Court to impose sanctions of $5,000 against Plaintiff pursuant to 20 Federal Rule 37, which authorizes a district court to sanction a party for not obeying a discovery 21 order. Fed. Rule Civ. P. 37(b)(2). Amica asserts that sanctions are warranted because (1) 22 23 Plaintiff’s counsel violated the protective order he drafted, (2) the brief that the confidential 24 materials were filed in support of did not rely on the materials, and (3) Plaintiff’s counsel clearly 25 knew the materials were confidential because he labeled them as such in the declaration. Plaintiff 26 27 1 counters that sanctions are not warranted because his counsel made a simple mistake and 2 corrected it within two hours of being made aware of the error by Amica’s counsel. 3 “The scope of sanctions for failure to comply with a discovery order is committed to the 4 sound discretion of the district court.” Payne v. Exxon Corp., 121 F.3d 503, 510 (9th Cir. 1997). 5 Here, under the circumstances presented—namely that this is a first-time offense that was 6 7 corrected within two hours of the error being brought to Plaintiff’s attention, that Amica has not 8 established that it was prejudiced by the error, and that Plaintiff’s attorney admitted to his error— 9 the Court concludes that sanctions are not warranted. However, the Court further notes that 10 Plaintiff’s error could have been avoided with due diligence on the part of his counsel and the 11 Court expects such diligence in the future. Any further violations of the parties’ protective order 12 will not be tolerated. 13 IV. CONCLUSION 14 15 For the foregoing reasons, Amica’s motion for sanctions is HEREBY DENIED. 16 Dated this 6th day of December 2023. 17 A 18 19 B arbara Jacobs Rothstein 20 U .S. District Court Judge

23 24 25 26 27