Matthis v. Safeway Inc

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: August 24, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00065
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 DADRIE A MATTHIS, CASE NO. C22-0065-JCC 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 SAFEWAY INC., 13 Defendant. 14

15 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion to compel and for attorney 16 fees. (Dkt. No. 13.) Having thoroughly considered the briefing and the relevant record, and 17 finding oral argument unnecessary, the Court GRANTS the motion for the reasons explained 18 herein. 19 Plaintiff alleges she sustained injuries after slipping and falling at Defendant’s gas 20 station. (Dkt. No. 1-2 at 2.) She filed a complaint in King County Superior Court. (Dkt. No. 1-2.) 21 Defendant removed the case to this Court. (See Dkt. No. 1 (Notice of Removal).) Initial 22 disclosures and discovery requests began prior to removal. (Dkt. No. 13 at 2.) Defendant sent 23 interrogatories and requests for production to Plaintiff for basic information about the incident 24 and potential sources of relevant evidence. (See Dkt. No. 14-1, 14-2.) Plaintiff, through counsel, 25 e-mailed answers to some, but not all, of the interrogatories. (See Dkt. No. 14-4.) Defendant 26 contends the answers were incomplete and, in any event, deficient in that Plaintiff did not sign 1 them. (Dkt. No. 13 at 2.) Defendant further contends that Plaintiff failed to respond in writing, as 2 required, to the requests for production, or produce any of the requested items. (Id.) 3 According to Defendant, the parties conferred on multiple occasions and, in each 4 instance, Plaintiff’s counsel indicated the remaining disclosures were forthcoming. (Dkt. No. 14 5 at 2-3.) Yet Plaintiff provided only inadequate follow-up responses to interrogatories and none of 6 the documents sought through Defendant’s requests for production. (Dkt. No. 14 at 3.) 7 Defendant now moves to compel Plaintiff’s production of Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures, along 8 with full, complete, and procedurally compliant responses to its interrogatories1 and requests for 9 production. (See Dkt. No. 13-1 (proposed order).) Defendant also seeks fees in bringing this 10 motion. (Id.) Plaintiff has not filed a brief in opposition, which the Court considers an admission 11 that Defendant’s motion has merit. See LCR 7(b)(2). 12 “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any 13 party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). If requested discovery is not answered, the 14 requesting party may move for an order compelling such discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). The 15 Court has broad discretion to decide whether to compel disclosure of discovery. Hallet v. 16 Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). If the Court grants a motion to compel, it must order 17 attorney fees unless the opposing party’s actions are substantially justified or other circumstances 18 makes the award of expenses unjust. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5), (d)(3). 19 Nearly eight months in, Defendant has yet to receive answers to basic discovery requests. 20 Nor has it received initial disclosures required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. What 21 Plaintiff’s counsel has provided in the way of discovery responses are inadequate and 22 procedurally deficient. Nor has Plaintiff’s counsel satisfied his obligation to meet and confer in 23

24 1 Plaintiff’s counsel provided Defendant with updated answers to some of the 25 interrogatories, with Plaintiff’s signature typed out to read “S/s Dadrie A. Matthis.” (Dkt. No. 26 14-4 at 15.) This is not compliant with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3), (5). 1 good faith. See LCR 1(c)(6). Plaintiff also has not presented any justification for her failure to 2 provide initial disclosures, answer interrogatories, or produce items requested by Defendant. 3 Accordingly, the Court FINDS good cause to compel Plaintiff to provide the missing disclosure 4 and discovery in a procedurally satisfactory manner and to sanction Plaintiff in accordance with 5 Rule 37(a)(5) and (d)(3). It is hereby ORDERED that: 6 1. Plaintiff shall provide initial disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1) within 21 days of 7 this Order. 8 2. Plaintiff shall supplement the answers to Defendant’s interrogatories and provide a 9 valid signature verifying the answers within 21 days of this Order. 10 3. Plaintiff shall produce the items requested for production by Defendant or provide 11 full written responses explaining when the items will be produced or stating the 12 grounds for objection to production within 21 days of this Order. 13 4. Defendant shall submit evidence of its reasonable expenses related to Plaintiff’s 14 failure to provide discovery within 14 days of this Order. 15 16 DATED this 24th day of August 2022. 17 A 18 19 20 John C. Coughenour 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26