O.H. v. Secret Harbor

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 O.H., an individual, and C.D., an CASE NO. 2:23-cv-60 8 individual, ORDER 9 Plaintiffs,

10 v.

11 SECRET HARBOR, a non-profit corporation, 12 Defendant. 13 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Secret Harbor’s Motion for 14 Clarification on the Court’s Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery. 15 Dkt. Nos. 98, 101. As is the case here, “motions for clarification are appropriate 16 when parties are uncertain about the scope of a ruling or when the ruling is 17 reasonably susceptible to differing interpretations.” See N. Alaska Env’t Ctr. v. 18 Haaland, No. 3:20-CV-00187-SLG, 2023 WL 3661998, at *3 (D. Alaska May 25, 19 2023). 20 The Court granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery, including Request 21 for Production 10, regarding documents related to Markel Insurance Company’s 22 declaratory judgment action against Secret Harbor. See Dkt. No. 98. “Secret Harbor 23 1 requests clarification of the Court’s Order as it relates to the portion of the request 2 regarding, ‘all communications exchanged between Markel Insurance Company and

3 Secret Harbor, and/or their respective attorneys.’” Dkt. No. 101 at 2. 4 The Court clarifies that Secret Harbor is not required to produce 5 communications exchanged between Markel and Secret Harbor and/or their 6 respective attorneys. 7 Dated this 16th day of February, 2024. 8 A 9 Jamal N. Whitehead United States District Judge 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23