Erik A. Sleveland v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company SI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ERIK A. SLEVELAND, Case No. C25-1043-RSM Plaintiff, 9 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO v. COMPEL AMERCIAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY SI, Defendant.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant American Family Mutual Insurance Company SI (“American Family”)’s Motion seeking responses from Plaintiff to American Family’s discovery requests and for Plaintiff to produce documents identified in his initial disclosures. Dkt. #22. Plaintiff, now proceeding pro se, has failed to respond.

The record indicates that Plaintiff served initial disclosures without accompanying documents and has refused to respond to Defendant’s discovery requests even after receiving a deadline extension. See Dkt. #22-1. The Court is satisfied that Defendant has made an adequate effort to attempt to meet and confer about these issues.

24 “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). If requested discovery is not answered, the requesting party may move for an order compelling such discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). The party that resists discovery has the burden to show why the discovery request should be denied.

Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975).

Having reviewed the briefing and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby FINDS and ORDERS that Defendant’s Motion to Compel, Dkt. #22, is GRANTED. Plaintiff is to produce to Defendant all documents to support his initial disclosures and complete responses, without objection, to all remaining discovery requests no later than February 27, 2026.

Defendant is permitted to file a motion for attorney’s fees with a declaration justifying the amount requested. The Court will review that motion and any response from Plaintiff before deciding whether fees are warranted in this case under Rule 37(a)(5)(A).

16 DATED this 27th day of January, 2026.

18 A 20 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE