Joseph Lochuch Ewalon v. Paula L. Main, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: July 2, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-05397
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 JOSEPH LOCHUCH EWALAN, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05397-KKE-DWC 11 Plaintiff, v. ORDER ON MISCELLANEOUS 12 MOTIONS PAULA L. MAIN, et al., 13 Defendants. 14

15 The District Court has referred this pro se prisoner civil rights action to United States 16 Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Multiple matters are currently before the Court: Plaintiff’s 17 Second Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. 38), Defendants’ Objections to Plaintiff’s 18 Interrogatories and Requests for Production (Dkt. 39), Plaintiff’s Motion to Redact Information 19 (Dkt. 42), and Plaintiff’s Motion for No Contact Order (Dkt. 45). For the reasons below, these 20 pending matters are DENIED. The deadlines in the Pretrial Scheduling Order (Dkt. 31) shall be 21 extended by 60 days, as noted below. 22 23 24 1 I. Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt. 38) 2 Plaintiff previously requested appointment of counsel on March 25, 2026. Dkt. 36. The 3 Court denied Plaintiff’s first motion without prejudice, finding Plaintiff had not demonstrated 4 appointment of counsel was warranted at that time. Dkt. 37. On April 15, 2026, Plaintiff filed a

5 second Motion to Appoint Counsel. Dkt. 38. In the present motion, Plaintiff again describes his 6 cognitive issues and post-traumatic stress disorder stemming from his previous brain injury and 7 states he has only been able to litigate up to this point with extensive help from fellow inmates. 8 Id. Defendants did not file a response. See docket. 9 As the Court noted in its previous order, a plaintiff in a § 1983 action is not entitled to 10 appointed counsel, and the Court may appoint voluntary counsel for indigent civil litigants only 11 in exceptional circumstances. See Dkt. 37 at 2–3; Rand v. Roland, 113 F.3d 1520, 1525 (9th Cir. 12 1997), rev’d on other grounds, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998). Again, at this stage of the case, 13 before the close of discovery or the filing of dispositive motions such as motions for summary 14 judgment, Plaintiff has not established such exceptional circumstances exist. Plaintiff has not

15 shown this case involves complex facts or law. Although he states he experiences symptoms 16 such as headaches and forgetfulness, Plaintiff’s filings thus far have been understandable by the 17 Court. It is clear Plaintiff believes counsel would help him to pursue this case, but that is not the 18 standard for appointment of counsel. See Rand, 113 F.3d at 1525. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s 19 second Motion to Appoint Counsel (Dkt. 38) is DENIED without prejudice. 20 II. Discovery Motions (Dkts. 39, 42) 21 Two of the pending motions seek the Court’s intervention on discovery matters. On April 22 20, 2026, Defendants filed Objections to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Requests for Production, 23 along with two supporting declarations. Dkts. 39, 40, 41. Plaintiff submitted a response on April

24 1 28, 2026. Dkt. 43. Defendants did not file a reply. See docket. Also on April 28, 2026, Plaintiff 2 filed a Motion to Redact Information requesting the Court order Defendants to redact irrelevant 3 information from discovery materials. Dkt. 42. Defendants did not respond. See docket. 4 The Court strongly disfavors discovery motions and prefers that the parties resolve

5 discovery issues on their own. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1); Local Rule W.D. Wash. 26(f), 6 37(a)(1); Beasley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2014 WL 1268709, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 7 25, 2014); Branch Banking & Tr. Co. v. Pebble Creek Plaza, LLC, 2013 WL 12176465, at *1 8 (D. Nev. July 26, 2013) (judicial intervention is appropriate only when “informal negotiations 9 have reached an impasse on the substantive issue in dispute”). 10 In their Objections, Defendants state Plaintiff propounded written discovery on 11 Defendants totaling 45 handwritten pages and including 66 interrogatories and 16 requests for 12 production. Dkt. 39 at 1. Before responses were due, Plaintiff produced an additional 13 requests 13 for production in a supplemental filing. Id. Defendants object to the discovery requests as 14 overbroad, disproportionate to the needs of the case, and unduly burdensome under Federal Rule

15 of Civil Procedure 26(b), as well as in violation of the numerical limits in Federal Rule of Civil 16 Procedure 33. Id. They request the Court order Plaintiff to serve one comprehensive set of 17 written discovery including no more than 25 interrogatories and associated requests for 18 production and give them an additional 60 days to respond to this amended discovery to 19 accommodate the need to transcribe handwritten filings. Id. at 2–3. 20 In Plaintiff’s Motion, he requests the Court order Defendants to exclude irrelevant 21 information when responding to his discovery requests. Dkt. 42 at 1. He states including 22 materials other than those specified in his requests for production creates confusion, is a waste of 23 time, and is misleading. Id. at 2.

24 1 First, the parties do not appear to have attempted to resolve either of these discovery 2 issues between themselves before seeking intervention from the Court and have not shown 3 judicial intervention is warranted. Second, as Plaintiff points out, Rule 33 allows “a party [to] 4 serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories,” meaning “each plaintiff may

5 serve each defendant with 25 interrogatories.” Trevino v. ACB Am., Inc., 232 F.R.D. 612, 614 6 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (emphasis in original). Defendants have not shown the significant curtailment 7 of this limit requested is appropriate. 8 For these reasons, the Court declines to intervene at this time and DENIES Defendants’ 9 request for relief (Dkt. 39) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Redact (Dkt. 42).1 The parties are directed 10 to meet and confer regarding the contested discovery issues and are reminded that, as noted in 11 the Local Rules, “discovery requests and related responses should be reasonably targeted, clear, 12 and as specific as possible.” Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 26(f). If the parties are unable to 13 resolve the discovery disputes, they may file appropriate motions with the Court. To 14 accommodate these directives, the Court will extend the pretrial deadlines by 60 days.

15 III. Plaintiff’s Motion for No Contact Order (Dkt. 45) 16 On June 3, 2026, Plaintiff filed a Motion for No Contact Order. Dkt. 45. Defendants did 17 not file a response. See docket. In his Motion, Plaintiff states Defendant Heden summoned him 18 for an interview on May 27, 2026, regarding a grievance he had filed against Defendant Main. 19 Dkt. 45 at 2–3. Plaintiff believed it was inappropriate for a Defendant in a pending case to 20 interview Plaintiff without seeking leave from defense counsel or the Court, but Defendant 21 Heden maintained the matter was unrelated and said a liaison officer had cleared him to 22

23 1 Plaintiff also requests the Court order sanctions for abuse of discovery and award him attorney’s fees in an unspecified amount. Dkt. 43 at 9–10. These requests are denied. As Plaintiff is not represented by an attorney, there 24 is no basis to award attorney’s fees. 1 interview Plaintiff. Id. at 3. Plaintiff states Defendant Heden engaged in harassment, stalking, 2 and intimidation, causing him emotional harm and mental anguish, and requests a temporary no 3 contact order against Defendants Heden and Main. Id. at 4. 4 The Court has considered Plaintiff’s request and finds Plaintiff has not shown that the

5 requested relief is warranted. Plaintiff has not cited any authority for his belief that parties in an 6 ongoing case cannot speak to one another without counsel present or leave of the Court for 7 matters unrelated to pending litigation. For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for No Contact 8 Order (Dkt. 45) is DENIED. 9 IV. Conclusion 10 For the reasons above, the Court ORDERS: 11 (1) Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Dkt. 38), Defendants’ 12 Objections to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Requests for Production (Dkt. 39), 13 Plaintiff’s Motion to Redact Information (Dkt. 42), and Plaintiff’s Motion for No 14 Contact Order (Dkt. 45) are DENIED.

15 (2) The Pretrial Scheduling Order (Dkt. 31) is amended as follows: 16 a. All discovery shall be completed by September 4, 2026. 17 b. Any motion to compel discovery shall be filed not later than August 14, 2026. 18 c. Any dispositive motion shall be filed and served by October 5, 2026. 19 Dated this 2nd day of July, 2026. 20 A 21 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 22 23 24