Johnson v. Nordstrom

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 AMANDA JOHNSON, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-01813-LK 11 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 12 v. COMPEL 13 NORDSTROM et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Amanda Johnson’s Motion to Compel. 17 Dkt. No. 15. Her one sentence motion seeks an order compelling Defendant Nordstrom “to submit 18 [its] employees’ complete names and mailing address[es]” to the Clerk of the Court. Id. at 1. 19 This motion is premature. Nordstrom has not yet appeared in this case, and the case has 20 not yet proceeded to discovery. If the case proceeds to discovery, Plaintiff may seek discovery by 21 following the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are available 22 at https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil- 23 procedure. The Court further notes that under Local Civil Rule 37(a), the Court may deny any 24 motion to compel that does not contain the required “certification, in the motion or in a declaration 1 or affidavit, that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or 2 party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to resolve the dispute without court 3 action.” The Local Civil Rules are available at 4 https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/sites/wawd/files/042624%20WAWD%20Local%20Civil%20R

5 ules%20-%20Clean.pdf. “The Court expects all parties—pro se and those represented by 6 counsel—to comply with the Court’s procedural rules.” Capello v. Sziebert, No. C13-5275BHS- 7 JRC, 2014 WL 2465283, at *1 (W.D. Wash. June 2, 2014). 8 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Ms. Johnson’s motion to compel. Dkt. No. 15. 9 Dated this 1st day of May, 2024. 10 A 11 Lauren King United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23