O.H. v. Secret Harbor

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT SEATTLE O.H., an individual, and C.D., an CASE NO. 2:23-cv-60 individual, ORDER Plaintiffs,

v.

SECRET HARBOR, a non-profit corporation, Defendant. This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Secret Harbor’s Motion for Clarification on the Court’s Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery. Dkt. Nos. 98, 101. As is the case here, “motions for clarification are appropriate when parties are uncertain about the scope of a ruling or when the ruling is reasonably susceptible to differing interpretations.” See N. Alaska Env’t Ctr. v. Haaland, No. 3:20-CV-00187-SLG, 2023 WL 3661998, at *3 (D. Alaska May 25, 2023). The Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery, including Request for Production 10, regarding documents related to Markel Insurance Company’s declaratory judgment action against Secret Harbor. See Dkt. No. 98. “Secret Harbor requests clarification of the Court’s Order as it relates to the portion of the request regarding, ‘all communications exchanged between Markel Insurance Company and

Secret Harbor, and/or their respective attorneys.’” Dkt. No. 101 at 2. The Court clarifies that Secret Harbor is not required to produce communications exchanged between Markel and Secret Harbor and/or their respective attorneys. Dated this 16th day of February, 2024. A Jamal N. Whitehead United States District Judge