From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

TIFT v. BALL

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle
Oct 18, 2007
CASE NO. C07-0276RSM (W.D. Wash. Oct. 18, 2007)

Opinion

CASE NO. C07-0276RSM.

October 18, 2007


ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL INITIAL DISCLOSURES


This matter comes before the Court on defendants' Motion to Compel initial disclosures. (Dkt. #11). Defendants argue that plaintiff, appearing pro se, has submitted initial disclosures which are not in conformance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1). Plaintiff responds that he has made every attempt to comply with the rules governing initial disclosures, and argues that he has provided sufficient responses in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1).

Having reviewed defendants' motion, plaintiff's response, defendants' reply, the declarations and exhibits attached thereto, and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS:

1) Defendants' Motion to Compel (Dkt. #11) shall be GRANTED. The Court finds that plaintiff has not complied with his initial disclosure obligations under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1). First, although plaintiff has provided names, addresses, and phone numbers of individuals who are likely to have discoverable information, plaintiff has not identified "the subjects of the information." See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A). "The disclosing party should provide a brief description of the subject matter of the information each prospective witness has. It is not necessary to provide a detailed narrative of all the facts known to each witness; a brief description of the general topics of each witness' knowledge will suffice." 6-26 Moore's Federal Practice — Civil § 26.22[4][a][ii].

Second, plaintiff has not provided documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things that are in his possession, custody, or control that he will use to support his claim. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(B). Plaintiff has merely supplied defendants with case law and depositions that defendants already possess. Plaintiff may comply with this obligation "by providing a description by category and location of all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things it expects to use during the proceeding." 6-26 Moore's Federal Practice — Civil § 26.22[4][b][iii] (emphasis added).

Lastly, plaintiff has not provided a general computation of damages to support his claim or any documents in support of such computation. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(C). Plaintiff has only included a description of why he is seeking relief. Plaintiff is required to "furnish copies, or make available for inspection and copying, the damage and injury documents." 6-26 Moore's Federal Practice — Civil § 26.22[4][c][i]. In addition, a plaintiff has the "obligation to disclose to the other parties the best information available to it concerning that claim, however limited and potentially changing it may be." Id. at [4][c][ii].

Therefore the Court ORDERS plaintiff to comply with his initial disclosure obligations under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) pursuant to the language contained herein no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. The Court recognizes that plaintiff is appearing pro se and has previously made a good faith effort to comply with his obligations under the Federal Rules. Consequently, no sanctions shall be imposed.

2) The Clerk shall forward a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.


Summaries of

TIFT v. BALL

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle
Oct 18, 2007
CASE NO. C07-0276RSM (W.D. Wash. Oct. 18, 2007)
Case details for

TIFT v. BALL

Case Details

Full title:GREGORY S. TIFT, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL D. BALL, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle

Date published: Oct 18, 2007

Citations

CASE NO. C07-0276RSM (W.D. Wash. Oct. 18, 2007)

Citing Cases

Danielson v. Huether

The rule does not require parties "to provide a detailed narrative of all the facts known to each witness; a…