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 GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL -1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

CARRIE FRANCISCO,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES SEAFOOD, et al.,

Defendants.

 No. CV06-885RSL

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “Motion to Compel Discovery” (Dkt.

#21). For the reasons discussed below, plaintiff’s motion is granted in part and denied in part.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This case arises out of the death of Cory Francisco, an assistant cook on the vessel

SEAFREEZE ALASKA. While in port in Dutch Harbor, Alaska, on June 22, 2004, Mr.

Francisco and a number of other crew members, including Jason Jack-Nelson, left the vessel to

visit a local bar for the evening. At some point, Mr. Francisco and Mr. Jack-Nelson got into an

altercation that resulted in Mr. Francisco being treated at a local clinic and eventually at a

hospital in Anchorage, Alaska. Though eventually released from the hospital, Mr. Francisco

was found dead in Seattle, Washington on July 2, 2004. Mr. Francisco’s widow filed this action

and alleges that defendants are responsible for Mr. Francisco’s wrongful death.

Case 2:06-cv-00885-RAJ Document 49 Filed 09/14/07 Page 1 of 5
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 GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL -2

The dispute before the Court on this motion involves the sufficiency of defendants’

responses to plaintiff’s discovery requests. On March 15, 2007, plaintiff served defendants with

a number of interrogatories and requests for production. Plaintiff’s motion to compel focuses on

defendants’ response to Interrogatory No. 4 and Request for Production 3.

Interrogatory No. 4 requests the following: “For all persons interviewed regarding this

case provide identity of interviewer and interviewee, date and place of interview, subject matter

covered, whether there was a recording or signed statement, and identify possessor of said

recording or signed statement.” Defendants objected on the grounds that the request called for

“information covered by the work-product doctrine, attorney-client privilege, and the self-critical

analysis privilege.” Without waiving objections, defendants also stated that “Cory Francisco

wrote a letter . . . produced in initial disclosures,” and that he was also interviewed, but that

there were no related recordings, transcripts or written statements. Defendants later

supplemented their response to include documentation of the conversation between defendants’

investigators and Mr. Francisco.

Request for Production 3 seeks the crew list for the vessel at the time of the alleged

assault of Mr. Francisco, including the individuals’ positions, last known address, and phone

number. The request requires that if plaintiff subsequently requests, defendant must produce

“next of kin and emergency contact for persons on said crew list whose address and/or phone

number is no longer valid after inquiry by plaintiff.” Defendant objected and stated the request

was over broad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 

On May 23, 2007, defendants supplemented their response to include the names of Mr.

Francisco’s and Mr. Jack-Nelson’s supervisors and roommates, as well as the crew member who

worked with Mr. Francisco in the galley. Defendants further supplemented their response on

July 30, 2007 by naming five additional people they believed to have knowledge regarding the

incident. Defendants now assert that they have disclosed the names of 37 individuals who they

believe have knowledge relevant to plaintiff’s claims, including 14 crew members.

Case 2:06-cv-00885-RAJ Document 49 Filed 09/14/07 Page 2 of 5
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 GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL -3

III. DISCUSSION

A. Identification of Interviewed Witnesses

Defendants argue that plaintiff’s request for information relating to the identity of those

interviewed improperly seeks to encroach on attorney work product. See Hickman v. Taylor,

329 U.S. 495 (1947) (materials that “reveal an attorney’s strategy, intended lines of proof,

evaluation of strengths or weaknesses, and inferences drawn from interviews” are protected

attorney work product). In response, plaintiff relies heavily on American Floral Services, Inc. v.

Florists Transworld Delivery Ass’n., 107 F.R.D. 258 (N.D. Ill. 1985). The Court believes the

facts of American Floral are distinguishable from those present in this case. In American Floral,

defendant sought the disclosure of the identity of two individuals who were the source of factual

allegations relevant to plaintiff’s lawsuit. Plaintiff responded by identifying a list of 200

individuals who “potentially” had knowledge of the same facts available to plaintiff’s sources. 

The court concluded that requiring defendant to sort through 200 individuals “smack[ed] of a

needle-in-haystack search: time consuming, wasteful and expensive.” Id. at 260-61. The court

went on to find that the disclosure of the identities of the two individuals in questions would

reveal nothing about the opposing attorney’s “sorting of the wheat from chaff” and would

therefore offer no “significant insights” into plaintiff’s legal strategy. Id. at 261-62. Plaintiff

was ordered to disclose the identities of its two sources.

In this instance, the universe of potentially knowledgeable witnesses is 37 individuals,

much smaller than the 200 at issue in American Floral. The more applicable case, therefore, is

Board of Education of Evanston Township High School District No. 202 v. Admiral Heating and

Ventilating, Inc., 104 F.R.D. 23 (N.D. Ill. 1984), a case also discussed by the court in American

Floral. In Admiral Heating, a price-fixing case involving piping construction companies,

plaintiffs’ interrogatories asked defendants to identify anyone that they interviewed “concerning

meetings, discussions or communications among officers or employees of any competitors with

regard to piping construction bids, pricing, customers or territories” as well as the circumstances

Case 2:06-cv-00885-RAJ Document 49 Filed 09/14/07 Page 3 of 5
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 GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL -4

of those interviews. Id. at 32. The court held that while it was proper to seek the identity of

those who had “knowledge ‘concerning meetings, discussions or communications among officers

or employees of any competitors with regard to piping construction bids, pricing, customers or

territories,” it was inappropriate to seek information on “whom defendants interviewed, where

and when such interviews took place and whether or not a record was made.” Id. (emphasis in

original). As the court in American Floral summarized the holding in Admiral Heating:

in that case the disclosure of all persons interviewed, when coupled with

the equally inevitable disclosure of which of them were anticipated

witnesses (and therefore which were not), would teach the opponent just

which interviewees’ information was viewed as gold and which as dross. It

would teach the shape of the discovered party’s case as surely as the shape

of a container teaches the shape of the gas within. It would reveal the

conceptual sifting of relevant from irrelevant facts.

107 F.R.D. at 261. The Court concludes that plaintiff’s request in interrogatory No. 4 is similar

to the one made in Admiral Heating and raises similar concerns. Plaintiff has been given a

limited and discrete list of those individuals who may have relevant knowledge. The additional

disclosure of information related to defendant’s interviews of those individuals would add little

to plaintiff’s ability to garner relevant information while also posing a significant risk of

revealing protected attorney work product. As such, plaintiff’s motion to compel with regard to

Interrogatory No. 4 is denied.

B. Production of Crew Contact Information

Defendants contend that plaintiff’s request for crew contact information is overbroad

because “any witness to the events leading up to and including the incident [between Cory

Francisco and Jason Jack-Nelson] would have been confined to those individuals who were

onshore with the [sic] Mr. Francisco.” Defendants also assure plaintiff that the names of all

those “with information regarding the events prior to and after the incident” have been already

disclosed. The Court disagrees with defendants characterization of the universe of relevant

evidence. Though those individuals on shore with Mr. Francisco and Mr. Jack-Nelson are those

most likely to have relevant information regarding the incident at issue, other crew members

Case 2:06-cv-00885-RAJ Document 49 Filed 09/14/07 Page 4 of 5
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

Plaintiff also moves to strike portions of defendants’ response due to defendants’ violation of

Local Rule 7(e)’s page limitations. Though plaintiff is correct, the Court points out that plaintiff’s motion

and reply violated a number of local rules as well. First, plaintiff’s motion did not include a noting date as

required by Local Rule 7(b). Further, plaintiff’s reply was filed late without first seeking leave of the

Court. Due to violations on both sides, the Court will consider those portions of defendants’ response

that exceeded the page limits. All parties are now on notice, however, that future violations of the Local

Rules will be strictly enforced. The materials that are the focus of plaintiff’s remaining motions to strike

were not relevant to the Court’s resolution of this motion and the motions are therefore denied.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL -5

may have witnessed relevant events or conversations leading up to and following the incident

itself. Given the liberal discovery rules, plaintiff has demonstrated that crew contact

information could lead to admissible evidence. See Hoang v. Trident Seafoods Corp., 2007 WL

1691190, *1 (W.D. Wash. June 7, 2007) (granting motion to compel crew contact list under

similar circumstances). The Court does not believe, however, that the disclosure of contact

information for crew members next of kin and emergency contact designees is necessary for

plaintiff to conduct a thorough investigation. Such disclosure would be of minimal value while

burdening the privacy of individuals with only an attenuated connection to the case. In the event

that defendants’ contact information is out of date, plaintiff has other means at her disposal to

locate such individuals. Plaintiff’s motion to compel the information sought in Request for

Production 3 is therefore granted in part and denied in part.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to compel (Dkt. #21) is GRANTED IN

PART and DENIED IN PART.1

DATED this 14th day of September, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00885-RAJ Document 49 Filed 09/14/07 Page 5 of 5