1 FILED IN THE 2 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 Sep 13, 2024 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 SUNDANCE SLOPE, LLC, a Washington 10 limited liability company, No. 2:23-CV-00083-SAB 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION 13 TROUT-BLUE CHELAN-MAGI, LLC, a FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 Washington limited liability corporation; 15 and EDWARD JOHNSON, former chief 16 executive officer of Trout-Blue Chelan- 17 MAGI, Inc. and Trout-Blue Chelan-MAGI, 18 LLC, 19 Defendants. 20 21 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 99. 22 Plaintiff is represented by Carl Hueber, Christine M.H. Meegan, Collette Leland, 23 and Darren Digiacinto. Defendants are represented by Nathan Alexander, Nathan 24 Yalanda Bishop, and Shawn Bright-Larsen. The motion was considered without 25 oral argument. 26 Plaintiff moves for reconsideration and/or clarification of the Court’s Order 27 Denying Motion to Compel, ECF No. 98. Specifically, Plaintiff requests the Court 28 grant Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Compel filed on May 22, 2024, ECF No. 77, 1 and require Defendants to provide full and complete initial disclosures and 2 responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production. Upon review, and being fully 3 informed, the Court grants the motion and vacates its previous decision as to the 4 motion to compel. 5 Background 6 The Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel on July 3, 2024, ECF No. 7 98. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, Renewed Motion to Compel, and Defendants’ 8 Motion to Quash were filed close in time to each other. The motions to compel and 9 the motion to quash are substantively separate and distinct. The motion to quash 10 pertained to the third-party subpoenas only, which were addressed by the Court in 11 the July 3, 2024 Order. However, Plaintiff’s motions to compel related only to 12 Defendants’ refusal to respond to discovery requests, which were not addressed in 13 the Order. 14 As to the previous motion to compel, Plaintiff moved the Court to compel 15 Defendants to provide full and complete initial disclosures and responses to 16 Plaintiff’s Requests for Production (“RFPs”). Plaintiff served its RFPS on 17 Defendant Trout Blue Chelan-MAGI (“Chelan Fruit”) on January 4, 2024. Chelan 18 Fruit responded that the RFPs were burdensome, sought irrelevant information, 19 and alleged that each responsive document were separate requiring additional 20 requests. After some deliberation, Chelan Fruit produced a total of 1,105 pages in 21 March 2024 and then stopped. Chelan Fruit advised Plaintiff it has additional 22 responsive documents, but that it deems these confidential; and they will not be 23 produced unless Plaintiff agrees to Chelan Fruit’s proposed confidentiality 24 agreement. 25 Plaintiff believes that Chelan Fruit’s proposed confidentiality agreement is 26 overbroad. After some deliberation as to new language in the confidentiality 27 agreement, the Parties still disagree as to the scope of the RFPs. 28 1 The RFPs at issue relate to documents and communications that are relevant 2 to Chelan Fruit’s alleged interference with Plaintiff’s contract with Cameron 3 Nursey for the purpose of 28,500 SugarBee® trees, the alleged pattern and 4 retaliation and intimidation by Chelan Fruit against Plaintiff and other growers, the 5 SugarBee® Program central to this matter, and whether Defendants selectively 6 applied and interpreted the policies and terms governing the SugarBee® program. 7 8 Legal Standard 9 Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the 10 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. 11 v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). A motion for 12 reconsideration may be reviewed under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or 60(b) (relief from judgment). Sch. 14 Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “A district court 15 may properly reconsider its decision if it ‘(1) is presented with newly discovered 16 evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or 17 (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.’” Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch. 18 Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263). 19 “There may also be other, highly unusual, circumstances warranting 20 reconsideration.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263. Whether to grant a motion for 21 reconsideration is within the sound discretion of the court. Navajo Nation v. 22 Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th 23 Cir. 2003). 24 Applicable Law 25 Rule 37 allows a party to move for a court order compelling discovery when 26 the opposing party fails to produce documents as requested under Rule 34. Fed. R. 27 Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv). If a party objects to the requests for production, the 28 “objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the 1 basis of that objection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C). “[A]n evasive or incomplete 2 disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or 3 respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). 4 When reviewing a motion to compel, the court must consider whether the 5 discovery requests are relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. 6 Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant material includes, “any matter that bears on, or that 7 reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issues that is or may 8 be in a case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). The 9 court has broad discretion in determining relevancy. Id. 10 Whether the requested material is proportional to the needs of the case 11 depends upon: 1) the amount in controversy: 2) the parties’ relative access to 12 relevant information; 3) the parties’ resources; 4) the importance of the discovery 13 in resolving the issues; and 5) whether the burden or expense of the requested 14 discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 15 16 Discussion 17 Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is granted because the Court 18 misunderstood the facts. In the mix of multiple motions for protective order, the 19 Court misunderstood the background of Plaintiff’s motion to compel. 20 After review, and being fully informed, Plaintiff requested relevant and 21 proportional discovery from Chelan Fruit. The requested material is important to 22 resolving this issue and Chelan Fruit has not articulated a burden or expense that 23 outweighs the likely benefit of production for Plaintiff. The RFPs and insurance 24 agreement relating to the SugarBee® Program are relevant and proportional to the 25 allegations against Defendants by Plaintiff. Complete discovery answers and 26 production of requested documents will assist in resolving this matter. The parties 27 can then prepare for depositions and participate in the litigation in earnest. 28 1|| Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is granted and the Court vacates its prior order as to Plaintiff's motion to compel. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 FILED IN THE 2 U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 Sep 13, 2024 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 9 SUNDANCE SLOPE, LLC, a Washington 10 limited liability company, No. 2:23-CV-00083-SAB 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION 13 TROUT-BLUE CHELAN-MAGI, LLC, a FOR RECONSIDERATION 14 Washington limited liability corporation; 15 and EDWARD JOHNSON, former chief 16 executive officer of Trout-Blue Chelan- 17 MAGI, Inc. and Trout-Blue Chelan-MAGI, 18 LLC, 19 Defendants. 20 21 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 99. 22 Plaintiff is represented by Carl Hueber, Christine M.H. Meegan, Collette Leland, 23 and Darren Digiacinto. Defendants are represented by Nathan Alexander, Nathan 24 Yalanda Bishop, and Shawn Bright-Larsen. The motion was considered without 25 oral argument. 26 Plaintiff moves for reconsideration and/or clarification of the Court’s Order 27 Denying Motion to Compel, ECF No. 98. Specifically, Plaintiff requests the Court 28 grant Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Compel filed on May 22, 2024, ECF No. 77, 1 and require Defendants to provide full and complete initial disclosures and 2 responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production. Upon review, and being fully 3 informed, the Court grants the motion and vacates its previous decision as to the 4 motion to compel. 5 Background 6 The Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel on July 3, 2024, ECF No. 7 98. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, Renewed Motion to Compel, and Defendants’ 8 Motion to Quash were filed close in time to each other. The motions to compel and 9 the motion to quash are substantively separate and distinct. The motion to quash 10 pertained to the third-party subpoenas only, which were addressed by the Court in 11 the July 3, 2024 Order. However, Plaintiff’s motions to compel related only to 12 Defendants’ refusal to respond to discovery requests, which were not addressed in 13 the Order. 14 As to the previous motion to compel, Plaintiff moved the Court to compel 15 Defendants to provide full and complete initial disclosures and responses to 16 Plaintiff’s Requests for Production (“RFPs”). Plaintiff served its RFPS on 17 Defendant Trout Blue Chelan-MAGI (“Chelan Fruit”) on January 4, 2024. Chelan 18 Fruit responded that the RFPs were burdensome, sought irrelevant information, 19 and alleged that each responsive document were separate requiring additional 20 requests. After some deliberation, Chelan Fruit produced a total of 1,105 pages in 21 March 2024 and then stopped. Chelan Fruit advised Plaintiff it has additional 22 responsive documents, but that it deems these confidential; and they will not be 23 produced unless Plaintiff agrees to Chelan Fruit’s proposed confidentiality 24 agreement. 25 Plaintiff believes that Chelan Fruit’s proposed confidentiality agreement is 26 overbroad. After some deliberation as to new language in the confidentiality 27 agreement, the Parties still disagree as to the scope of the RFPs. 28 1 The RFPs at issue relate to documents and communications that are relevant 2 to Chelan Fruit’s alleged interference with Plaintiff’s contract with Cameron 3 Nursey for the purpose of 28,500 SugarBee® trees, the alleged pattern and 4 retaliation and intimidation by Chelan Fruit against Plaintiff and other growers, the 5 SugarBee® Program central to this matter, and whether Defendants selectively 6 applied and interpreted the policies and terms governing the SugarBee® program. 7 8 Legal Standard 9 Reconsideration is an “extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the 10 interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. 11 v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir. 2000). A motion for 12 reconsideration may be reviewed under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13 59(e) (motion to alter or amend a judgment) or 60(b) (relief from judgment). Sch. 14 Dist. No. 1J v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). “A district court 15 may properly reconsider its decision if it ‘(1) is presented with newly discovered 16 evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or 17 (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.’” Smith v. Clark Cnty. Sch. 18 Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263). 19 “There may also be other, highly unusual, circumstances warranting 20 reconsideration.” Sch. Dist. No. 1J, 5 F.3d at 1263. Whether to grant a motion for 21 reconsideration is within the sound discretion of the court. Navajo Nation v. 22 Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation, 331 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th 23 Cir. 2003). 24 Applicable Law 25 Rule 37 allows a party to move for a court order compelling discovery when 26 the opposing party fails to produce documents as requested under Rule 34. Fed. R. 27 Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv). If a party objects to the requests for production, the 28 “objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the 1 basis of that objection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C). “[A]n evasive or incomplete 2 disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or 3 respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). 4 When reviewing a motion to compel, the court must consider whether the 5 discovery requests are relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. Fed. R. 6 Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Relevant material includes, “any matter that bears on, or that 7 reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issues that is or may 8 be in a case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). The 9 court has broad discretion in determining relevancy. Id. 10 Whether the requested material is proportional to the needs of the case 11 depends upon: 1) the amount in controversy: 2) the parties’ relative access to 12 relevant information; 3) the parties’ resources; 4) the importance of the discovery 13 in resolving the issues; and 5) whether the burden or expense of the requested 14 discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 15 16 Discussion 17 Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is granted because the Court 18 misunderstood the facts. In the mix of multiple motions for protective order, the 19 Court misunderstood the background of Plaintiff’s motion to compel. 20 After review, and being fully informed, Plaintiff requested relevant and 21 proportional discovery from Chelan Fruit. The requested material is important to 22 resolving this issue and Chelan Fruit has not articulated a burden or expense that 23 outweighs the likely benefit of production for Plaintiff. The RFPs and insurance 24 agreement relating to the SugarBee® Program are relevant and proportional to the 25 allegations against Defendants by Plaintiff. Complete discovery answers and 26 production of requested documents will assist in resolving this matter. The parties 27 can then prepare for depositions and participate in the litigation in earnest. 28 1|| Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is granted and the Court vacates its prior order as to Plaintiff's motion to compel. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration, ECF No. 99, is GRANTED. 5 2. Defendants must produce the requested documents with or without a confidentiality agreement by no later than September 27, 2024. 3. Plaintiff's motion for attorney fees in their motion to compel is 8|| DENIED because the delay was caused by the Court. 9 4. The Court’s Order Denying Motion to Compel and Granting Motion to Quash, ECF No. 98, is VACATED in part as to the motion to compel. 11 5. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, ECF No. 69, is GRANTED. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Clerk is hereby directed to enter 13|| this Order and to provide copies to counsel. 14 DATED this 13th day of September 2024. 15 16 17 18 bya Secthan 29 Stanley A. Bastian Chief United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ADNTD CRANTING MATION CAD DECOANCINEDRDATION 4 <