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

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

ROBERT BONNEVILLE, a/k/a WILL

ELLWANGER,

Plaintiff,

v.

KITSAP COUNTY, a Municipal Corporation,

KITSAP COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT,

STEPHEN MOUNT, TIMOTHY QUAYLE,

THOMAS WIGGINS, and MICHAEL

BARTH,

Defendants.

Case No. C06-5228RJB

ORDER

I. FACTS

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Kitsap County, Stephen Mount and Michael

Barth’s Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories. Dkt. 96. The Court has considered the

documents filed in support of the motion and the file herein.

On December 18, 2006, Defendants Kitsap County, Stephen Mount and Michael Barth (“Kitsap

County Defendants”) propounded to Plaintiff their First Interrogatories and Requests for Production. Dkt.

97, at 1. On January 29, 2007, Plaintiff emailed his responses and served the Kitsap County Defendants

with a hard copy of his responses on February 9, 2007. Id. On February 7, 2007, Kitsap County

Defendants left a voicemail and email for the Plaintiff indicating that they felt that his responses were

inadequate and requested a discovery conference. Id. Parties conferred, and agreed that Plaintiff could

Case 3:06-cv-05228-RJB Document 109 Filed 03/26/07 Page 1 of 3
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

Page - 2

supplement his responses by February 28, 2007. Id. On February 28, 2007, parties agreed to an extension

of time until March 1, 2007. Id. Plaintiff has failed to supplement his responses. 

Kitsap County Defendants now file this Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories and

request attorneys fees incurred in bringing the motion. Dkt. 96. 

II. DISCUSSION

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(1) provides that “[e]ach interrogatory shall be answered

separately and fully in writing under oath, unless it is objected to. . . ” Kitsap County Defendants point out,

and the record indicates, that Plaintiff failed to answer Request for Production No. 1 (regarding Plaintiff’s

tax information), Interrogatory No. 6 (regarding other litigation in which Plaintiff was involved),

Interrogatory No. 11 (identification of damages), and Interrogatory No. 12 (description of property, nature

of interest in the property, costs of improvements on the property, and dollar amount of damages). 

Plaintiff failed to fully answer Interrogatories No. 8 and 9 (regarding contact information for all witnesses),

Interrogatory No. 15 and Request for Production No. 7 (regarding provision of legal services). If a party

fails “to serve answers or objections to interrogatories submitted under Rule 33 after proper service of the

interrogatories . . . [the court] may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(d). It is a common principle that the rules of discovery are to be broadly and liberally construed to

facilitate identifying the issues, promote justice, provide a more efficient and speedy disposition of the case,

avoid surprise, and prevent the trial of a lawsuit from becoming a guessing game. See Hickman v. Taylor,

329 U.S. 495 (1947). Kitsap County Defendants are entitled under the Federal Rules to receive full

answers or objections to their interrogatories and requests for production, so long as they properly served

the Plaintiff and conferred with him in good faith. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(d). Kitsap County Defendants have

done so. Dkt. 97. Therefore, the Defendants’ Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories should be

granted, and Plaintiff should fully respond to Kitsap County Defendants’ Interrogatories and Requests for

Production no later than three (3) days of the date of this Order. Failure to comply with this Order may

result in sanctions, including dismissal of the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b).

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(4), if a motion compelling discovery is granted, the

Court “shall, after affording an opportunity to be heard, require the party . . . whose conduct necessitated

the motion . . . to pay the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including

Case 3:06-cv-05228-RJB Document 109 Filed 03/26/07 Page 2 of 3
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

Page - 3

attorney’s fees, caused by the failure unless the court finds that the failure was substantially justified or that

other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Nothing in the record shows that Plaintiff’s

failure was substantially justified or that an award of costs will be unjust. Accordingly, Kitsap County

Defendants and Plaintiff should brief this Court as to whether an award of costs and fees would be unjust

and whether the failure to respond was substantially justified. Further, the Kitsap County Defendants

should brief this Court as to reasonable expenses caused by Plaintiff’s failure to respond. Briefs should be

submitted no later than April 6, 2007, responses no later than April 9, 2007, and replies no later than April

12, 2007.

Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED

(1) Defendants Kitsap County, Stephen Mount and Michael Barth’s Motion to Compel

Responses to Interrogatories (Dkt. 96) is GRANTED; 

(2) Briefs regarding reasonable expenses incurred in making this motion, if any, should be

submitted no later than April 6, 2007, responses, if any, no later than April 9, 2007, and

replies, if any, no later than April 12, 2007. Consideration of an award of attorneys fees

and costs, if any, shall be NOTED for April 13, 2007. 

(3) The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to

any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 

DATED this 26th day of March, 2007.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge 

Case 3:06-cv-05228-RJB Document 109 Filed 03/26/07 Page 3 of 3