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

1

In its Opposition to Defendant Bean’s Motion to Compel, HHCG referred to “over 240,000 pages of

documents...in electronic and hard copy.” [Dkt. #40, p. 11].

ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

GENERAL METALS OF TACOMA, INC., a

Washington Corporation; and ARKEMA,

INC., a Pennsylvania Corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BEAN ENVIRONMENTAL LLC, a

Delaware limited liability company; and

BEAN DREDGING LLC, a Louisiana limited

liability company,

Defendants.

No. CV05-5306

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Bean Environmental, LLC’s (“Bean”) Motion to

Compel [Dkt. #38]. Bean asks the Court to compel Plaintiffs General Metals of Tacoma, Inc. and Arkema,

Inc. (collectively, the Head of Hylebos Cleanup Group, or “HHCG”) to provide complete answers to

Bean’s Interrogatories No. 1 through No. 5. 

Interrogatories No. 1 through No. 3 ask that HHCG describe all facts and identify particular

documents relating to each alleged breach of contract and relating specifically to Bean’s alleged defective

dredging. HHCG claims that the information sought is equally available to Bean, and referred Bean to

more than 150,000 pages1

 of documents produced by HHCG and its consulting engineering firm, Dalton,

Olmsted & Fuglevand, Inc. HHCG added that it intends to provide more information as it becomes

Case 3:05-cv-05306-RBL Document 44 Filed 02/21/06 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

available. 

Interrogatories No. 4 and No. 5 ask that HHCG describe the amount, type, and method of

calculation of damages, and identify related documents. HHCG responded with anticipated damages and

added that it will provide Bean with a list of documents on which the damage estimate is based after the

current dredging season ends in mid-March 2006.

Civil Rule 33 requires a party to furnish responsive information “as is available to the party.” Fed.

R. Civ. P. 33(a). The purpose of Rule 33 is threefold: (1) it enables a party to prepare for trial; (2) it

narrows the issues and helps determine what evidence will be needed at trial; and (3) it reduces the

possibility of surprise at trial. 8A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, Federal

Practice and Procedure §2162 (2d ed.1994). Rule 33 is liberally construed to meet this purpose. Bell v.

Swift & Co., 283 F.2d 407, 409 (5th Cir. 1960). 

Bean seeks information that is related to HHCG’s central allegations and to damages, a reasonable

request. On the other hand, given that the discovery cut-off is not until September 18, 2006, it is not

surprising that HHCG has not yet compiled a list of bated documents for trial. In light of these

circumstances and the liberal construction Rule 33 is afforded, this Court concludes that HHCG could

fairly respond to Bean’s requests within 50 calendar days. 

Defendant Bean’s Motion to Compel [Dkt. #38] is GRANTED. HHCG is ordered to respond to

Bean’s Interrogatories No. 1 through No. 5 within 50 calendar days. With respect to Interrogatories No. 1

through No. 3, HHCG should provide specific dates and highlight specific documents that support its

allegations. With respect to Interrogatories No. 4 and No. 5, HHCG should supply the method it used for

calculating damages and highlight pertinent documents up to present day that correspond to alleged

damages.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 21st day of February, 2006.

A

RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05306-RBL Document 44 Filed 02/21/06 Page 2 of 2