1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING MOTION

TO COMPEL - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

THOMAS A. WEBER, 

Plaintiff,

v.

TIME WARNER, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-1706L

ORDER DENYING MOTION

TO COMPEL

This matter comes before the Court on “plaintiff’s suggestion that court enter show cause

order.” (Dkt. #76). The “suggestion” sought an order “requiring the Defendants to show cause

by substantial justification why the Court should not impose a remedial order against the

Defendants for their failure to provide the Plaintiff with any Rule 26(c) disclosures.” Plaintiff’s

Motion at p. 2. Because the “suggestion” sought relief from the Court, the Court noted it, as

plaintiff should have, as a motion to compel. 

Plaintiff filed his suggestion on January 12, 2006, and stated that as of that date,

defendants had not provided him with any initial disclosures. Plaintiff’s Motion at p. 1

(emphasis added). Defendants’ initial disclosures, however, are part of the Court’s record and

were filed on January 10, 2006. Plaintiff conceded in the parties’ joint status report, filed on

January 20, 2006, that he received defendants’ initial disclosures on January 10, 2006, but

Case 2:05-cv-01706-RSL Document 110 Filed 01/31/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER DENYING MOTION

TO COMPEL - 2

argues that they were incomplete.

Based on those facts, on January 18, 2006, defendants’ counsel sent plaintiff two e-mails

requesting that he withdraw this motion. Declaration of Randolph Gordon (Dkt. #94), Exs. 1, 3. 

Plaintiff did not respond or withdraw the motion. Plaintiff filed a reply to the motion, arguing

that defendants had not responded to the motion and continuing to request an order to compel.

The Court finds that defendants provided plaintiff with their initial disclosures on January

10, 2006, before plaintiff filed this motion. Accordingly, the Court DENIES “plaintiff’s

suggestion that court enter show cause order.” (Dkt. #76).

Defendants request that the Court impose sanctions based on plaintiff’s filing of his

motion after he received the initial disclosures. Plaintiff has multiplied and obstructed the

proceedings by filing a motion to compel production of initial disclosures after he had already

received them, and by failing to withdraw his motion after acknowledging that he had received

them. Moreover, plaintiff has misrepresented a material fact to the Court. He alleged in his

motion that defendants had not provided any initial disclosures, when in fact they had. 

Plaintiff’s conduct has vexatiously multiplied the proceedings, increased costs, and wasted both

the Court’s and the defendants’ resources. Accordingly, the Court imposes sanctions for filing

this frivolous motion in the amount of $500.00 to be paid to defendants within twenty days of

the date of this order.

DATED this 31st day of January, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01706-RSL Document 110 Filed 01/31/06 Page 2 of 2