Strickland v. City of Auburn

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: June 13, 2023
• Docket: 2:22-cv-00528
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE 7 ENOSA STRICKLAND, SR.; KATHLEEN CASE NO. 22-cv-528 KELIKOA-STRICKLAND, individually and 8 as co-Personal Representative of the ESTATE ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ OF ENOSA STRICKLAND JR., MOTION TO COMPEL 9 Plaintiffs, 10 v. 11 CITY OF AUBURN, a municipality; 12 KENNETH LYMAN, individually,

13 Defendants. 14 15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery, requesting 16 an order commanding Defendants to locate and produce “all documents responsive the Plaintiffs’ 17 discovery.” Dkt. No. 67. But Defendants contend they weren’t even “aware that any request was 18 in dispute until the motion was filed,” and that Plaintiff failed entirely to meet and confer about 19 the issues raised in the motion. Dkt. No. 69 at 2. 20 Whether the parties met and conferred is no trivial matter. LCR 37(a)(1) requires the 21 moving party to certify that they have “in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the 22 person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to resolve the dispute without 23 court action.” “A good faith effort to confer with a party or person not making a disclosure or 24 discovery requires a face-to-face meeting or a telephone conference.” Id. If a party fails to make 1 this required certification, “the court may deny the motion without addressing the merits of the 2 dispute.” Id. 3 The requirement to meet and confer in good faith is not simply a “formalistic prerequisite”

4 for judicial resolution. Selim v. Fivos, Inc., C22-1227-JCC, 2023 WL 3172467, at *2 (W.D. Wash. 5 May 1, 2023) (citing Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 6 2015)). “A good faith effort to resolve discovery disputes requires an exchange of information 7 until no additional progress is possible.” Beasley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., C13-1106- 8 RSL, 2014 WL 1268709, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 25, 2014). Indeed, even when a certification is 9 included, “[c]ourts may look beyond the certification to determine whether a sufficient meet-and- 10 confer took place.” Selim, 2023 WL 3172467, at *2 (citing Cardoza, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1145)). 11 Here, Plaintiffs failed to certify in their motion to compel or declaration that they met and 12 conferred with Defendants before filing their motion. See Dkt. Nos. 67, 68. Plaintiffs refer to a

13 December 30, 2022, discovery letter; a “January 20” discovery conference; and state that 14 “[m]ultiple discovery conferences and correspondence have occurred since.” Dkt. No. 71 at 1. But 15 this does not satisfy LCR 37(a)(1), as the rule requires the movant to provide a certification to 16 include the “the date, manner, and participants to the conference.” LCR 37(a)(1). Thus, the Court 17 finds that Plaintiffs’ reference to former conferral attempts with Defendants does not satisfy the 18 good-faith-conferral requirement for the present motion. 19 This motion marks the seventh discovery-related motion filed by the parties, and it was 20 clear on the face of each prior motion the parties met and conferred before seeking relief from the 21 Court. See Dkt. Nos. 15, 19, 25, 31, 37, 67. The Court trusts the parties to meet and confer in good 22 faith, as they’ve done in the past, and credits Defendant’s assurance that a phone call will resolve

23 the latest discovery dispute. See Dkt. No. 69 at 2, 14. 24 For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel is DENIED without prejudice. 1 It is so ordered. 2 Dated this 13th day of June, 2023. 3 A 4 Jamal N. Whitehead United States District Judge 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24