Torell v. Lovell

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 MICHAEL W. TORRELL, CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05406-DGE 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION TO 12 v. REQUIRE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS ONLY (DKT. 13 TODD LOVELL et al., NO. 70) 14 Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Motion to Require Written 17 Communications Only.” (Dkt. No. 70.) For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s motion is 18 DENIED. 19 On January 23, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the Court order that “all 20 communications between Plaintiff and Defendants’ counsel be conducted exclusively in written 21 form.” (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff states he is making the request to “preserve clarity of the record, 22 prevent misunderstandings, and ensure fairness in light of [his] pro se status.” (Id.) Specifically, 23 Plaintiff states he has “experienced confusion” because of “overlapping legal matters and 24 1 complex procedural issues” and asserts that written communications will ensure all Parties 2 maintain a “clear and accurate record of statements, positions, and representations.” (Id.) 3 Defendants responded to Plaintiff’s motion on February 2. (Dkt. No. 71.) They oppose 4 Plaintiff’s motion because his requested relief would be “unduly cumbersome” and would not

5 resolve the problems Plaintiff is experiencing. (Id. at 1.) They assert that while most of the 6 communication between the Parties is indeed done in writing, there are some occasions, such as 7 the joint status report, discovery conferences, depositions, and settlement discussions that require 8 the Parties to speak in person. (Id. at 1–2.) Further, Defendant states that verbal 9 communications are “memorialized in writing and jointly signed off,” which ensures there will 10 be “no preservation or clarity issues.” (Id. at 2.) 11 Plaintiff requests this Court enter an order requiring the Parties exclusively communicate 12 by writing but provides neither law nor facts to support this request. Local Civil Rule 1(c)(6) 13 defines “Meet and Confer” as a “good faith conference in person or by telephone to attempt to 14 resolve the matter in dispute without the court’s involvement” (emphasis added). Many pretrial

15 motions require the parties meet and confer, including motions for relief from a deadline (LCR 16 7(j)), motions for protective order (LCR 26(c)), and any discovery motions (LCR 37(a)(1)). The 17 Court appreciates Plaintiff’s desire to maintain a clear record but is unaware of any authority that 18 permits it to modify the Local Rules or order that the Parties’ conferral obligations may be met 19 exclusively via written communication. The Court has also reminded the Parties of the 20 importance of speaking in person to resolve discovery disputes. (See Dkt. Nos. 68, 69.) At least 21 one court in this district has denied a similar request from a pro se plaintiff. See McNae v. ARAG 22 Ins. Co., Case No. 2:24-cv-00211-TL, 2025 WL 2579734, at *7 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 4, 2025) 23 (denying the plaintiffs’ request to waive the meet-and-confer requirement or order that all

24 1 conferrals occur through written communication only because the plaintiffs provided no 2 authority to excuse their obligations to discuss matters germane to their case with opposing 3 counsel). And even though courts must construe pleadings liberally in favor of pro se litigants, 4 “pro se litigants are [still] required to follow procedural rules.” Coleman v. Brand, Case No.

5 3:23-cv-06135-DGE, 2024 WL 3346230, at *1 (W.D. Wash. July 9, 2024) (citing Ghazali v. 6 Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995)). 7 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request to require written communications only (Dkt. No. 70) is 8 DENIED. 9 10 Dated this 18th day of February 2026. 11 a 12 David G. Estudillo 13 United States District Judge

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24