Swinerton Builders v. Lexington Insurance Company

Opinion

1 2 3 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 SWINERTON BUILDERS, Case No. 2:21-cv-259-RAJ-TLF 7 Plaintiff, v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 8 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, 15 MORE INTERROGATORIES 9 Defendant. 10

11 This matter comes before the Court on Swinerton Builders’ (“Swinerton”) motion 12 for leave to serve 15 more interrogatories on Lexington Insurance Company 13 (“Lexington”). Dkt. 163. Lexington contends Swinerton failed to meet and confer in good 14 faith about the issues raised in the motion. Dkt. 165. Swinerton’s motion is interpreted 15 by the Court as a motion to compel Lexington to respond to more discovery requests, 16 and is denied without prejudice, for failing to comply with The Local Civil Rules (LCR) of 17 the Western District of Washington, LCR 1(a), LCR 1(c)(6), LCR 26(f), LCR 37(a)(1). 18 The Local Civil Rules (LCR) of the Western District of Washington specify the 19 conduct necessary to show good faith. LCR 1(c)(6) and LCR 37(a)(1) require a face-to- 20 face meeting, or phone meeting. Under LCR 37(a) the moving party is required to certify 21 that they have “in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party 22 failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to resolve the dispute without court 23 action.” “A good faith effort to confer with a party or person not making a disclosure or 24 1 discovery requires a face-to-face meeting or a telephone conference.” Id. If a party fails 2 to make this required certification, “the court may deny the motion without addressing 3 the merits of the dispute.” Id. 4 The requirement to meet and confer in good faith is not simply a “formalistic

5 prerequisite” for judicial resolution. Selim v. Fivos, Inc., C22-1227-JCC, 2023 WL 6 3172467, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 1, 2023) (citing Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 141 7 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015)). “A good faith effort to resolve discovery 8 disputes requires an exchange of information until no additional progress is possible.” 9 Beasley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., C13-1106-RSL, 2014 WL 1268709, at *1 10 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 25, 2014). 11 Even when a certification is included, “[c]ourts may look beyond the certification 12 to determine whether a sufficient meet-and-confer took place.” Selim, 2023 WL 13 3172467, at *2 (citing Cardoza, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1145). 14 Swinerton, here, certifies that on October 29, 2024, counsel “met and conferred

15 with counsel for Lexington regarding the need for additional interrogatories.” Dkt. 164, 16 Declaration of Joseph L. Oliva, at ¶4. This meet and confer entailed one email from 17 Swinerton’s counsel to Lexington’s counsel asking whether Lexington would stipulate to 18 Swinerton serving another 15 interrogatories on October 29, 2024. Id. at Exhibit C. 19 Lexington responded to the email on November 1, 2024, stating that it does not agree to 20 the request. Id. Swinerton filed the instant motion on November 15, 2024. Dkt. 163. 21 The goal of LCR 37(a)(1) is to encourage parties to resolve discovery disputes 22 without unnecessarily involving the Court. Parties must make a genuine effort, and this 23 includes meeting in person physically or electronically by video conference, or meeting

24 1 by phone. LCR 37(a)(1). While Swinerton filed a certification that it met and conferred 2 with Lexington before filing this discovery motion, the certification did not show that 3 Swinerton complied with LCR 37. Neither a face-to-face meeting in person or by 4 videoconference, nor a telephone meeting, occurred here.1

5 Therefore, the Court will not address the merits of the dispute and DENIES, 6 without prejudice, Swinerton’s motion for leave to serve 15 additional interrogatories. 7 8 Dated this 23rd day of December, 2024. 9 10 A 11 Theresa L. Fricke 12 United States Magistrate Judge

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 1 Lexington also states that Swinerton disregarded District Judge Richard A. Jones’ General Motions 23 Practice, which also provides guidance to parties regarding the meet and confer requirement. See General Motions Practice (Civil).pdf (uscourts.gov). The parties are expected to follow the Chambers 24 Procedures (as shown on Judge Jones’ judicial web page) before filing any motions. See LCR 16(b)(3).