Rabel v. University of Washington Medical Center

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 18, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00083
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 LEEANN RABEL, CASE NO. C23-0083JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 12 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON 13 MEDICAL CENTER, 14 Defendant. 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 Before the court is Defendant the University of Washington Medical Center’s 17 (“UWMC”) motion for a protective order. (Mot. (Dkt. # 16); Reply (Dkt. # 22).) 18 Plaintiff Leeann Rabel opposes the motion. (Resp. (Dkt. # 19).) The court has 19 considered the motion, the parties’ submissions, the relevant portions of the record, and 20 // 21 // 22 1 the governing law. Being fully advised,1 the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part 2 UWMC’s motion for a protective order.

3 II. BACKGROUND 4 This case arises from Ms. Rabel’s termination from her employment as a certified 5 registered nurse anesthetist (“CRNA”) at UWMC’s Montlake Campus after UWMC 6 denied her request for a medical exemption from its COVID-19 vaccination requirement. 7 (See generally Compl. (Dkt. # 1).) 8 On August 9, 2021, Washington State Governor Jay Inslee issued Proclamation

9 21-14 (with amendments, the “Proclamation”), which required employees of Washington 10 State agencies, including UWMC, either to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or 11 obtain an exemption from the vaccination requirement by October 18, 2021. (Id. 12 ¶¶ 35-40); see Proclamation 21-14.2, available at https://perma.cc/6NEC-FSAT (last 13 visited January 17, 2024). Although Ms. Rabel had a “long-established medical

14 accommodation exempting her from any vaccination while working at UWMC,” UWMC 15 required her to submit a new request for a medical exemption from the Proclamation’s 16 COVID-19 vaccination mandate. (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 14, 39-40.) Ms. Rabel asserts that after 17 she submitted a timely request for a medical exemption, UWMC demanded that she 18 provide additional information, refused to grant her an extension of the deadline for

19 submitting additional paperwork, and ultimately denied her request. (Id. ¶¶ 15-24.) 20

21 1 Neither party has requested oral argument (see Mot. at 1; Resp. at 1) and the court deems oral argument unnecessary to its consideration of the motions, see Local Rules W.D. 22 Wash. LCR 7(b)(4). 1 UWMC terminated Ms. Rabel’s employment for failure to comply with the vaccination 2 requirement on October 18, 2021. (Id. ¶ 25.) Ms. Rabel also alleges that her coworkers

3 and supervisors subjected her to harassment on the basis of to her inability to be 4 vaccinated, that she reported this harassment, and that UWMC requested additional 5 information and denied her medical exemption in retaliation for reporting the harassment. 6 (Id. ¶¶ 16, 20-21.) 7 Ms. Rabel filed this lawsuit on January 18, 2023. (Id. at 1.) She asserts claims 8 against UWMC for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Washington

9 Law Against Discrimination; deprivation of privacy in violation of the Washington State 10 Constitution; “Deprivation of Life, Liberty, or Property” in violation of the Washington 11 State Constitution and the United States Constitution; and “Right To Be Free From 12 Arbitrary And Capricious Behavior.” (Id. ¶¶ 63-78.) 13 On July 13, 2023, Ms. Rabel served her first set of interrogatories and requests for

14 production of documents on UWMC. (See 11/20/23 O’Connell Decl. (Dkt. # 17) ¶ 3.) 15 UWMC served objections to these requests on August 14, 2023. (Id. ¶ 6.) Instead of 16 meeting and conferring regarding UWMC’s objections, Ms. Rabel served an amended 17 first set of interrogatories and requests for production on October 19, 2023 (“Amended 18 Requests”). (Id. ¶ 7; see id. ¶ 8, Ex. F (redlined document showing differences between

19 the original requests and the Amended Requests (“Redlined Amended Requests”).) 20 According to UWMC, the Amended Requests improperly (1) included an overbroad 21 definition of “UWMC” that could require it to provide information about employees of 22 other state agencies; (2) sought information related to religious exemptions from 1 COVID-19 that UWMC contends is irrelevant to this case; and (3) exceeded Federal Rule 2 of Civil Procedure 33’s 25-interrogatory limit by propounding interrogatories that contain

3 multiple discrete subparts. (See Mot. at 1-2 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P 33(a)(1)).) 4 The parties were unable to coordinate an opportunity to meet and confer about the 5 Amended Requests for several weeks. (See 11/20/23 O’Connell Decl. ¶¶ 10-11; id. ¶ 10, 6 Ex. F; Arnold Decl. (Dkt. # 21) ¶¶ 2-3.) Therefore, concerned that its deadline to respond 7 to the Amended Requests was quickly approaching, UWMC filed this motion for a 8 protective order on November 20, 2023. (Mot.; 11/20/23 O’Connell Decl. ¶¶ 10-11.)

9 The parties met and conferred about UWMC’s motion on November 28, 2023. 10 (Arnold Decl. ¶ 4.) Shortly thereafter, UWMC extended the noting date of its motion by 11 three weeks, in part to allow the parties time to attempt to resolve their dispute. (See 12 11/30/23 Not. (Dkt. # 18); 12/22/23 O’Connell Decl. (Dkt. # 23) ¶ 3, Ex. A, at 5-6 13 (emails regarding re-noting the motion).)

14 On December 13, 2023, Ms. Rabel served a second amended first set of 15 interrogatories and requests for production (“Second Amended Requests”). (See Arnold 16 Decl. ¶ 5; 12/22/23 O’Connell Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. B (redlined document showing changes 17 between the Amended Requests and the Second Amended Requests (“Redlined Second 18 Amended Requests”)).) The parties did not have an opportunity to meet and confer

19 regarding Ms. Rabel’s Second Amended Requests before the deadlines for Ms. Rabel to 20 respond to UWMC’s motion and for UWMC to file its reply expired. (Arnold Decl. ¶ 7; 21 12/22/23 O’Connell Decl. ¶ 3.) 22 1 III. ANALYSIS 2 Ms. Rabel argues that the court should not consider UWMC’s motion because

3 UWMC has not served objections to, and has not met and conferred about, the Second 4 Amended Requests. (Resp. at 6-9.) Although the court is troubled by the parties’ 5 repeated inability to coordinate meet-and-confer conferences, it nevertheless exercises its 6 discretion, in the interest of expediently resolving the parties’ dispute, to decide those 7 portions of the motion that are ripe for decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 (directing courts to 8 construe the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive

9 determination of every action and proceeding”).) 10 Because Ms. Rabel amended her interrogatories after UWMC filed its motion, the 11 court addresses the issues that UWMC asserts persist in the Second Amended Requests. 12 These are: (1) whether UWMC must produce information relating to non-medical 13 exemptions from the vaccination requirement; (2) whether Ms. Rabel’s definitions of

14 “UWMC” and “Employee” are overly broad; (3) whether the number of interrogatories, 15 including discrete subparts, still exceeds the Rule 33(a)(1) limit; and (4) whether UWMC 16 must produce information relating to adverse reactions from COVID-19 vaccines 17 reported by patients. (See Reply at 4, 7.) Below, the court states the governing legal 18 standard and then considers each of the matters in dispute.

19 A. Legal Standard 20 The scope of discovery in a civil matter is broad, but not unlimited. “Parties may 21 obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim 22 or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the 1 issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to 2 relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving

3 the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its 4 likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant information is that which is 5 “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Brown Bag 6 Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1470 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Fed. R. Civ. 7 P. 26(b)(1) (“Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in 8 evidence to be discoverable.”). The court has broad discretion in determining relevancy

9 for discovery purposes. Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th 10 Cir. 2005). 11 The court is empowered to issue a protective order “to protect a party or person 12 from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense” resulting from 13 discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). The party seeking protection bears the burden of

14 showing specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted. Phillips 15 ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). 16 B. Information About Non-Medical Exemptions 17 UWMC objects to Ms. Rabel’s requests for information related to non-medical 18 exemptions to the Proclamation’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement as irrelevant to the

19 needs of this case, which is based solely on UWMC’s denial of a medical exemption. 20 (See Mot. at 7; Reply at 7. See generally Compl.) Although UWMC does not identify 21 the specific discovery requests at issue in its briefing (see generally Mot.; Resp.), the 22 court understands that this objection applies to Interrogatories Nos. 5, 8, and 16, each of 1 which asks UWMC to provide information relating to both medical and religious 2 exemptions. (See Redlined Second Amended Requests at 6-7, 10.) Ms. Rabel does not

3 address UWMC’s objection to providing information about non-medical exemptions in 4 its response, and the court’s review of Ms. Rabel’s complaint supports the view that 5 information about non-medical exemptions is irrelevant and disproportionate to the needs 6 of this case. (See generally Resp.; Compl. See also Resp. at 2 (summarizing the facts 7 Ms. Rabel intends to prove at trial).) Accordingly, the court GRANTS UWMC’s motion 8 for a protective order with respect to the production of information and documents

9 relating to non-medical exemptions to UWMC’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement. 10 B. “UWMC” and “Employee” Definitions 11 UWMC objects to Ms. Rabel’s definitions of “UWMC” and “Employee” on the 12 ground that they are overly broad and would result in UWMC’s production of 13 information that is irrelevant and disproportionate to the needs of this case. (See Mot. at

14 6-7; Reply at 4-5.) It asserts that the scope of its responses should instead be limited to 15 Ms. Rabel’s place of employment, UWMC’s Montlake Campus. (Mot. at 7; Reply at 5.) 16 Ms. Rabel contends that she is entitled to broad discovery because the key decisions 17 relating to her case may have been made by levels of UWMC management higher than 18 the specific campus where she worked. (Resp. at 5, 9-12.) The court concludes that the

19 appropriate scope of discovery is somewhere in between. 20 Ms. Rabel defines “‘You,’ ‘your,’ and ‘UWMC’” as referring to: 21 University of Washington Medical Center, and any parent, affiliate, sister, subsidiary, predecessor, successor, or assignee of it, and its principals, 22 operating divisions, present or former owners, employees, servants, officers, 1 directors, agents, representatives, attorneys, accountants, independent contractors, distributors, and any other persons or entities acting on behalf of 2 or under the direction, authorization, or control of it, including any foreign or overseas affiliates, but does not include other agencies of the State of 3 Washington.

4 (Redlined Second Amended Requests at 2-3.) She defines “Employee” as referring to: 5 any employee of UWMC, and any other persons or entities acting on behalf of or under the direction, authorization, or control of UWMC, including any 6 foreign or overseas affiliates.

7 (Id. at 3.)

8 The court agrees with UWMC that these definitions are overbroad. Indeed, these 9 definitions are far from tailored to the needs of the case as required by Rule 26(b)(1); 10 instead, they are akin to the broad language attorneys use in settlement agreements to 11 define the scope of a release of claims. The court is unable to determine—and Ms. Rabel 12 does not explain—the relevance to the needs of this case of information about such 13 entities as “foreign or overseas affiliates” when this matter arises from UWMC’s 14 implementation of a Proclamation that applies to Washington state agencies. It is also 15 unclear how information about “predecessors, successors, or assignees” of UWMC is 16 relevant. Ms. Rabel herself acknowledges that “a State is not a corporation, and an 17 agency has no ‘affiliates’ or ‘parent.’” (Resp. at 9.) For similar reasons, Ms. Rabel’s 18 broad definition of “Employee” also reaches beyond the scope of information that is 19 relevant and proportionate to the needs of this case.2 20

21 2 The court observes that Ms. Rabel’s definitions of “UWMC” and “Employee,” read together, would require UWMC to produce information relating to the attorneys defending it in 22 this case. Surely this is not Ms. Rabel’s intent. 1 At the same time, the court declines UWMC’s invitation to limit the scope of 2 discovery to employees of UWMC’s Montlake Campus. Ms. Rabel has produced

3 evidence from which the court can reasonably infer that decisions about implementing 4 the Proclamation’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement, evaluating requests for medical 5 exemptions, and terminating employees who failed to comply with the vaccination 6 requirement were made by overall UWMC leadership rather than by the leadership of the 7 Montlake Campus alone. (See, e.g., Rabel Decl. (Dkt. # 20) ¶ 24, Ex. G (denial of 8 medical exemption by “Medical Centers Human Resources”)); id. ¶ 25, Exs. H-K (emails

9 regarding the vaccination requirement and Ms. Rabel’s vaccination status from “UW 10 Medicine Human Resources” and from UWMC’s Chief Nursing Officer, Associate 11 Medical Director, and Chief CRNA); id. ¶ 31, Ex. M (email to Ms. Rabel from UWMC’s 12 Medical Director regarding her removal from clinical service and the suspension of her 13 clinical privileges).)

14 For these reasons, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part UWMC’s 15 request for a protective order relating to the overbreadth of Ms. Rabel’s definitions of 16 “UWMC” and “Employee.” Pursuant to Rule 26(c)(1)(D), and in light of the centrality 17 of the Proclamation to this case, the court limits these definitions as follows: 18 “You,” “your,” and “UWMC” refer to the University of Washington Medical Center, including UW Medical Center - Montlake Campus and UW Medical 19 Center – Northwest Campus.

20 “Employee” refers to any “Worker” or “Health Care Provider” for UWMC, as defined by Proclamation 21-14.2. See Proclamation 21-14.2 at 8-9 21 (defining “Worker” and “Health Care Provider”).

22 1 C. Number of Interrogatories 2 Rule 33(a)(1) provides that “[u]nless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court,

3 a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including 4 all discrete subparts.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). This means that the court counts 5 “discrete subparts” within an interrogatory as separate interrogatories when determining 6 whether a party has exceeded the 25-interrogatory limit. Id. “Although the term ‘discrete 7 subparts’ [in Rule 33] does not have a precise meaning, courts generally agree that 8 ‘interrogatory subparts are to be counted as one interrogatory . . . if they are logically or

9 factually subsumed within and necessarily related to the primary question.’” Trevino v. 10 ACB Am., Inc., 232 F.R.D. 612, 614 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (quoting Safeco of Am. v. 11 Rawstron, 181 F.R.D. 441, 445 (C.D. Cal. 1998)). For example, “a question asking about 12 communications of a particular type should be treated as a single interrogatory even 13 though it requests that the time, place, persons present, and contents be stated separately

14 for each such communication.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1) advisory committee note (1993 15 amendments). However, “once a subpart of an interrogatory introduces a line of inquiry 16 that is separate and distinct from the inquiry made by the portion of the interrogatory that 17 precedes it, the subpart must be considered a separate interrogatory no matter how it is 18 designated.” Willingham v. Ashcroft, 226 F.R.D. 57, 59 (D.D.C. 2005).

19 In its motion, UWMC argued that Ms. Rabel’s Amended Requests yielded 96 20 discrete subparts that should each be treated as a separate interrogatory. (See Mot. at 5-6; 21 // 22 // 1 see also Redlined Amended Requests at 11-273 (tallying the alleged discrete subparts in 2 the right margin).) In response, Ms. Rabel withdrew a number of her interrogatories and

3 redrafted many others. (See Resp. at 12-14; see also Redlined Second Amended 4 Requests at 5-11 (showing the differences between Ms. Rabel’s Amended Requests and 5 Second Amended Requests).) UWMC now asserts in reply that Ms. Rabel’s Second 6 Amended Requests include 38 interrogatories, including discrete subparts. (Reply at 7 5-6.) Although UWMC provides a running count of how many discrete subparts it 8 asserts are included in Ms. Rabel’s second amended interrogatories (see Redlined Second

9 Amended Requests at 5-11 (tallying the alleged discrete subparts in the right margin)), it 10 explains its reasoning behind that count only for Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 4 (see Reply at 11 6).4 The court considers each in turn. 12 Interrogatory No. 2 asks: 13 Please provide your internal valuation of Ms. Rabel’s medical and pension benefits, as of the day before you instituted an employee COVID-19 14 vaccination requirement.

15 (Redlined Second Amended Requests at 6.) The court disagrees with UWMC’s 16 position that the requests for information about medical benefits and pension benefits 17 constitute two discrete subparts. To the contrary, Interrogatory No. 2 asks about the 18

19 3 The court cites the page number in the CM/ECF header when referring to the Redlined Amended Requests. 20 4 UWMC asserts that it did not provide an “interrogatory-by-interrogatory review” of the asserted subparts because that would “vastly exceed the word limits” set by the court’s local 21 rules. (Mot. at 6; see also Reply at 6-7 (making the same assertion).) UWMC could, however, have moved for leave to file an overlength brief that contained enough words to explain its 22 reasoning. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(f). 1 value of Ms. Rabel’s benefits, and the valuations of her medical benefits and pension 2 benefits are secondary inquiries that “relate to this common theme.” Paananen v. Cellco

3 P’ship, No. C08-1042RSM, 2009 WL 3327227, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 8, 2009) 4 (concluding that inquiries about names, dates, titles, job duties, and responsibilities were 5 all “logically subsumed” into plaintiff’s request for his co-workers’ employment history); 6 see also Kendall v. GES Exposition Servs., Inc., 174 F.R.D. 684, 686 (D. Nev. 1997) 7 (observing that a request for “the value of [plaintiff’s] compensation, including salary, 8 incentive payments, bonuses, life insurance, contributions to pensions plan [and] medical

9 insurance” was a single inquiry). Thus, Interrogatory No. 2 should be counted as one 10 interrogatory. 11 Interrogatory No. 4 asks: 12 Please list all work lost to UWMC due to positive diagnoses of COVID-19 after October 18, 2021 among UWMC employees, including the Identity of 13 the employee, the date of the diagnosis, the period of quarantine or isolation, and the dates of all shifts the employee missed as a result of the infection, 14 and state the vaccination status of the employee.

15 (Redlined Second Amended Requests at 6.) The Second Amended Requests define the 16 “Identity” of a person to mean “that person’s name, address, phone number, e-mail 17 address, employer’s name and position.” (Id. at 4.) Here, the court agrees with UWMC 18 that this interrogatory contains two discrete subparts: one that asks UWMC for 19 information about employees who missed work due to positive diagnoses of COVID-19, 20 and a second that asks UWMC for information about the work shifts that were missed 21 due to COVID-19. (See Reply at 6.) Thus, Interrogatory No. 4 should be counted as two 22 interrogatories. 1 UWMC has not, however, explained the basis for its contention that other 2 interrogatories contain multiple discrete subparts. (See generally Mot.; Reply.) That is,

3 it has not demonstrated “that a particular subpart of a particular interrogatory introduces a 4 separate and distinct line of inquiry from the one that precedes it, and which could fairly 5 and logically be counted as a new interrogatory against the presumptive limit.” Homesite 6 Ins. Co. of the Midwest v. Howell, No. C21-01389JHC, 2022 WL 17601176, at *3 (W.D. 7 Wash. Dec. 13, 2022). As the party opposing discovery, UWMC bears the burden of 8 explaining its objections. See id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) and Bryant v. Ochoa,

9 No. 07cv200 JM (PCL), 2009 WL 1390794, at *1 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2009)). The court 10 will not do the work of analyzing Ms. Rabel’s interrogatories on UWMC’s behalf. 11 Because UWMC has failed to meet its burden to explain its objections to Ms. Rabel’s 12 interrogatories, the court DENIES UWMC’s motion for a protective order relating to its 13 assertion that Ms. Rabel’s interrogatories (aside from Interrogatory No. 4) contain

14 multiple discrete subparts that should be considered separate interrogatories. 15 Interrogatory No. 4 shall count as two interrogatories. The remaining interrogatories in 16 Ms. Rabel’s Second Amended Requests shall each count as one interrogatory. 17 D. Patient COVID-19 Information 18 Finally, UWMC objects to producing information about its patients’ adverse

19 reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine in response to Ms. Rabel’s Interrogatory No. 3 and 20 Request for Production No. 2. (Reply at 7.) Interrogatory No. 3 asks UWMC to: 21 list all adverse reactions reported by patients to UWMC and its affiliates from COVID-19 vaccination from 2020 to present, including the patient’s Identity, 22 the date of the vaccination, the date(s) of the reported adverse reaction(s), 1 and the specific adverse reaction(s) reported or known, up to and including death. 2 (Redlined Second Amended Requests at 6.) Request for Production No. 2 seeks: 3 all documents related to, reporting on, or identifying in any way adverse 4 reactions reported by patients to UWMC from the COVID-19 vaccinations, including any reactions that resulted in death, identifying the date of 5 vaccination, the date of the reported adverse reaction, and the specific adverse reaction reported. 6 (Id. at 11.) Although Ms. Rabel included requests for substantially similar patient 7 information in her Amended Requests (see Redlined Amended Requests at 13, 28), 8 UWMC did not raise its objection to providing this information in its motion for a 9 protective order (see generally Mot.). Instead, UWMC addressed these requests for the 10 first time in its reply. (See Reply at 7.) Because arguments raised on reply are typically 11 waived, the court need not, and does not, consider UWMC’s request for a protective 12 order relating to Interrogatory No. 3 and Request for Production No. 2. See Turtle Island 13 Restoration Network v. U.S. Dep’t of Com., 672 F.3d 1160, 1166 n.8 (9th Cir. 2012); see 14 also Bridgham-Morrison v. Nat’l Gen. Assurance Co., C15-0927RAJ, 2015 WL 15 12712762, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 16, 2015) (“For obvious reasons, new arguments and 16 evidence presented for the first time on Reply . . . are generally waived or ignored.”).5 17 IV. CONCLUSION 18 For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part 19 UWMC’s motion for a protective order (Dkt. # 16). Specifically: 20 21

5 The court observes, however, that the relevance of UWMC’s patients’ reports of 22 adverse reactions from COVID-19 vaccinations to the needs of this case is far from clear. 1 1. The court GRANTS UWMC’s motion for a protective order with respect to 2 the production of information and documents relating to non-medical exemptions to

3 UWMC’s COVID-19 vaccination requirement. 4 2. The court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part UWMC’s request for a 5 protective order relating to the overbreadth of Ms. Rabel’s definitions of “UWMC” and 6 “Employee.” The court limits these definitions as follows: 7 “You,” “your,” and “UWMC” refer to the University of Washington Medical Center, including UW Medical Center - Montlake Campus and UW Medical 8 Center – Northwest Campus.

9 “Employee” refers to any “Worker” or “Health Care Provider” for UWMC, as defined by Proclamation 21-14.2. See Proclamation 21-14.2 at 8-9 10 (defining “Worker” and “Health Care Provider”).

11 3. The court DENIES UWMC’s motion for a protective order relating to its 12 assertion that Ms. Rabel’s interrogatories (aside from Interrogatory No. 4) contain 13 multiple discrete subparts that should count as separate interrogatories. Interrogatory 14 No. 4 shall count as two interrogatories. The remaining interrogatories shall each count 15 as one interrogatory. 16 4. The parties are ORDERED to ensure that they satisfy the meet-and-confer 17 requirement before they seek the court’s assistance on any future discovery dispute. See 18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) (requiring the party filing a motion for protective order to 19 “include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer 20 with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action”); Local 21 Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 26(c)(1) (providing that a “good faith effort to confer requires a 22 meeting or a telephone conference”). The parties are further ORDERED to review the 1 court’s procedures for the resolution of discovery disputes. (See Sched. Order (Dkt. # 14) 2 at 2 (directing the parties to request a conference with the court before moving for an

3 order relating to discovery).) Failure to follow these procedures in the future before 4 filing a motion relating to discovery may result in the court striking the motion. 5 Dated this 18th day of January, 2024. 6

A 7 8 JAMES L. ROBART United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22