Rosa Maria Cabrera Thompson v. Mukilteo School District No. 6

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: December 23, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00529
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 ROSA MARIA CABRERA CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00529-JNW 8 THOMPSON, ORDER 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 MUKILTEO SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 6, 12 Defendant. 13

14 The Court held a hearing on several pending motions on Monday, December 15 22, 2025. This written order confirms and supersedes the Court’s oral rulings and 16 controls in the event of any inconsistency with statements made during the hearing. 17 For the reasons stated on the record, the Court rules as follows: 18 1. Plaintiff Rosa Maria Cabrera Thompson’s Motion to Quash Defendant’s 25 19 Identical Non-Party Subpoenas, or in the Alternative to Modify them, and 20 for Protective Order, Request for Cost-Shifting, and Sanctions under 21 FRCP 45(d)(1), 26(b), and 26(g) is DENIED. Dkt. No. 163. 22 23 1 2. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for In Camera Review is DENIED. Dkt. 2 No. 175.

3 3. Mukilteo School District No. 6 (“District”) Motion for Plaintiff Filing 4 Restrictions is DENIED. Dkt. No. 192. Pre-filing review requirements 5 should “rarely” be imposed. De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1147 6 (9th Cir. 1990). The Court must make substantive findings of 7 frivolousness or harassment and consider less restrictive alternatives 8 before imposing such restrictions. Id. at 1148. The record does not yet

9 support such findings. But Plaintiff is cautioned that if the pattern of 10 serial, repetitive filings continues, the Court will issue an order to show 11 cause why filing restrictions and other sanctions should not be imposed. 12 4. The District’s Motion for Numerical Limitations on Discovery Requests is 13 GRANTED IN PART. Dkt. No. 204. Plaintiff has served six sets of 14 discovery request, including 230 Requests for Admissions, 35 15 Interrogatories with many subparts, and 67 Requests for Production. This

16 volume is excessive, unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, and 17 disproportionate to the needs of this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), 18 (2)(C). At the hearing, Plaintiff agreed that she would limit her discovery 19 to her currently outstanding requests and that she would not propound 20 additional discovery without leave of Court. Accordingly, Plaintiff is 21 limited to the discovery requests she has already served as of the date of

22 this Order. Plaintiff may not propound any further interrogatories, 23 1 requests for production, or requests for admission without first obtaining 2 leave of Court.

3 a. Any motion for leave must show good cause and explain why additional 4 discovery is necessary and proportional to the needs of the case. 5 b. Any such motion may not exceed FIVE (5) pages. Any opposition must 6 be filed within FIVE (5) days of the motion and may not exceed 7 THREE (3) pages. 8 c. The motion is DENIED in all other respects. Dkt. No. 204.

9 5. The District’s Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED IN PART. Dkt. 10 No. 166. The Court orders as follows: 11 a. Plaintiff’s arguments about waiver by disclosure and the crime- 12 fraud exception lack merit and are rejected. Materials over which 13 the District has properly asserted attorney-client privilege or work- 14 product protection are shielded from disclosure. See Upjohn Co. v. 15 United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981); Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S.

16 495 (1947). The Court can determine from the face of certain 17 requests that they seek presumptively privileged material. The 18 District’s privilege objections are SUSTAINED as to the following 19 requests, which on their face seek attorney-client communications 20 or attorney work product: RFPs 3.9, 4.5, 4.6, 4.7, 4.10, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 21 5.4, 5.5, 5.11, 5.13, 5.14, 5.15; and Interrogatory Nos. 5.3, 5.5. See

22 Dkt. No. 166. But the Court cannot evaluate the District’s privilege 23 1 claims for the other requests identified in its motion without a 2 privilege log identifying what is being withheld and on what basis.

3 b. This ruling concerns privileged communications, not facts. The 4 District must respond to discovery requests seeking factual 5 information within its knowledge even if such facts may also appear 6 in privileged communications. 7 c. Interrogatories 3, 12, and 15 from Plaintiff's Fifth Set are 8 STRICKEN as improper contention interrogatories. See Fed. R. Civ.

9 P. 33(a)(2). The District need not respond to these interrogatories. 10 d. The District must complete its responses to Plaintiff’s outstanding 11 discovery requests within SIXTY (60) days of this Order. 12 e. Within TWENTY-ONE (21) days of completing its discovery 13 responses as ordered above, the District must serve a privilege log 14 that complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A), identifying for each 15 withheld document or document category the date, author,

16 recipients, general subject matter, and specific privilege asserted. 17 See Rodriguez v. Seabreeze Jetlev LLC, 620 F. Supp. 3d 1009, 1023 18 (N.D. Cal. 2022) (a proper privilege log must be “sufficiently 19 detailed for the opposing party to assess whether the assertion of 20 privilege is justified”). Attorney-client communications or work 21 product involving in-house or outside counsel or the Washington

22 Schools Risk Management Pool created after the filing of Plaintiff’s 23 original complaint need not be listed on a privilege log. 1 f. To the extent that the District seeks a protective order to shield

9 confidential information from disclosure or to restrict Plaintiffs use

3 of discovery materials, that request is DENIED WITHOUT

4 PREJUDICE. The District must file a separate motion that

5 complies with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and LCR 26(c), including the

G required particularized showing of good cause. See Foltz v. State

7 Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003). 8 g. Plaintiff's request to deem Requests for Admission admitted is

9 DENIED. A motion to compel admissions (or to establish an

10 admission) is unnecessary. The rule is self-executing. See Fed. R.

11 Civ. P. 36(a)(8). 12 h. The motion is DENIED in all other respects. Dkt. No. 166.

13 6. The parties are ORDERED to engage in good faith meet-and-confer efforts

14 by email exchange during business hours before filing any motions related

15 to discovery disputes or before filing any other motion that requires a

16 meet-and-confer certification. The Court will consider sanctions for

17 extraneous filings and misuse of the docket.

18 IT IS SO ORDERED.

19 Dated this 23rd day of December, 2025.

29 Z. 2 i@— 21 Jamal N. Whitehead United States District Judge 22 23