Northwest Laborers-Employers Health & Security Trust v. Penhall Company

1 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE NORTHWEST LABORERS- EMPLOYERS HEALTH & SECURITY NO. 2:19-cv-01238-RAJ TRUST, et al., 13 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Plaintiffs COMPEL 14 v. PENHALL COMPANY, 16 Defendant

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion to compel. Dkt. # 12. The motion is unopposed. The Court has broad discretion to control discovery. Avila v. Willits Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011). Under Fed. R. Civ. 21 P. 37(a), a motion to compel must “include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.” This Court’s standing order similarly requires parties to meet and confer prior to filing any motion. Dkt. # 5 at 4.

3 Here, there is no evidence that Plaintiffs even attempted to satisfy the meet and confer requirement. Indeed, it is difficult to discern from Plaintiffs’ two-page motion which document requests or interrogatories Defendant is purportedly failing to respond to. The only evidence supporting Plaintiffs’ motion is an e-mail exchange between Plaintiffs’ counsel and Plaintiffs’ auditing firm in which the auditors describe their communications with Defendant. The Court cannot grant the requested relief on this record. Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED without prejudice. The parties are directed to confer to work out this discovery dispute. If the parties are unable to resolve the dispute, or if Plaintiffs are unable to meet and confer with Defendant, the motion to compel may be refiled.

DATED this 7th day of April, 2020.

A The Honorable Richard A. Jones 18 United States District Judge