Mayuga v. Sentinel Insurance Company LTD, No. 4:2019cv05047 - Document 25 (E.D. Wash. 2019)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING PROTECTIVE ORDER. Defendant Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltds Motion for Protective Order ECF No. 18 is GRANTED. Defendant Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltds request for attorney fees in its reply brief is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Thomas O. Rice. (LLH, Courtroom Deputy)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
vide adequate punishment. ECF No. 21 at 7-8. Plaintiff also 6 asserts courts consider the defendants’ lack of good faith, injury to the public, the 7 defendants’ ability to pay, and the need to eliminate benefits derived from the 8 violation. ECF No. 21 at 8. Plaintiff otherwise asserts courts may issue an 9 injunction protecting the plaintiff’s interests and the public interest. ECF No. 21 at 10 9. Plaintiff also assert “Defendant’s practices, including the extent to which they 11 are employed, have direct bearing on the Court’s decision whether, and what 12 extent, to issue the requested injunction.” ECF No. 21 at 9-10. Plaintiff concludes 13 that “evidence of complaints by ‘other people’ are properly sought”. ECF No. 21 14 at 8. The Court disagrees. 15 The factors cited do not support this reading. Further, Plaintiff’s desire to 16 root out other possible violations – without providing any explanation as to how it 17 is relevant to her claim or the issues before the Court – does not justify the 18 requested discovery. Plaintiff’s request amounts to a blind fishing expedition 19 without any real explanation as to how the request would lead to relevant 20 information, let alone how the request is proportional to the needs of the case. ORDER GRANTING PROTECTIVE ORDER ~ 6 1 In the second disputed request, Plaintiff seeks Defendant’s “company policy, 2 if any, for when [Defendant] will seek an impartial declaratory ruling on coverage 3 from the court when there is any allegedly conflicting or disputed evidence on 4 whether an insurance claim should be paid or denied . . . .” ECF No. 18 at 9. This 5 interrogatory does not request any relevant information—Defendant has not filed a 6 declaratory action for the underlying insurance claim nor is there a duty to do so. 7 Notably, Plaintiff did not respond to Defendant’s contentions, apparently 8 conceding the issue. See ECF No. 22. 9 ATTORNEY FEES 10 Defendant’s reply memorandum requests attorney fees, citing to Federal 11 Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)1. ECF No. 22 at 7. Rule 26(c)(3) adopts Federal 12 Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5) as the rule governing the award of expenses. If 13 the protective order is granted—the court must, after giving an opportunity to be 14 heard, require the party whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or 15 attorney advising that conduct, or both, to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses 16 incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees. Fees and expenses will 17 not be granted, even where the motion for protective order is granted, if the 18 19 1 20 to Rule 37(a)(5). Defendant cited to “FRCP 37(5)”, but it is clear Defendant intended to cite ORDER GRANTING PROTECTIVE ORDER ~ 7 1 opposing party’s objection was substantially justified or other circumstances make 2 an award of expenses unjust. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). 3 Here, the Plaintiff has not had the opportunity to address the attorney fee 4 issue because it was first raised in the reply brief. A portion of Plaintiff’s 5 argument was marginally justified, but in the end, it did not prevail. Further 6 briefing on the justification and amount of fees by both parties will only exacerbate 7 the unnecessary time and expense of litigation, in derogation of the overarching 8 goals expressed by the Rule 1 of the Federal Civil Rules, “to secure the just, 9 speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action”. Accordingly, considering 10 all the circumstances and the necessity for bringing the motion for protective order 11 make the award of attorney fees in this instance unjust. The Court may not be so 12 lenient concerning future disputes. The request for attorney fees is denied. 13 The Court reminds the parties that the Jury Trial Scheduling Order provides 14 a mechanism to timely and efficiently resolve discovery disputes without motion 15 practice: 16 To avoid wasted time and expense, Counsel may contact chambers to schedule a telephonic conference to obtain an expedited ruling on discovery disputes. Motions to compel seeking sanctions shall be filed in writing. 17 18 19 ECF No. 11 at 5. 20 // ORDER GRANTING PROTECTIVE ORDER ~ 8 1 2 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED: 1. Defendant Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd’s Motion for Protective 3 4 Order (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED. 2. Defendant Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd’s request for attorney fees in 5 6 7 8 its reply brief is DENIED. The District Court Clerk is directed to enter this Order and provide copies to counsel. DATED December 11, 2019. 9 10 11 THOMAS O. RICE Chief United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ORDER GRANTING PROTECTIVE ORDER ~ 9
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
