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

WESTERN AEROSPACE CORP., 

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN GLOWCZYK,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-896RSL

ORDER DENYING 

MOTION TO COMPEL

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on a motion to compel (Dkt. #26) filed by defendant 

John Glowczyk, who moves to compel plaintiff Western Aerospace Corporation (“Western

Aerospace”) to respond fully to his discovery requests. For the reasons set forth below, the

Court denies the motion.

II. DISCUSSION

Glowczyk served his First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of

Documents (the “discovery requests”) on September 26, 2006. Western Aerospace produced

some documents on October 20, 2006, before responses were due. It produced additional

documents on October 31, November 1, November 8, November 9, November 15, November 16,

November 21, and November 27, 2006. The parties participated in mediation on November 1,

Case 2:06-cv-00896-RSL Document 36 Filed 12/20/06 Page 1 of 4
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

2006 but were unable to settle the case. Western Aerospace served its responses to the

discovery requests on November 3, 2006.

The parties dispute whether they conferred in good faith before Glowczyk filed this

motion. Defense counsel asserts that he conferred with Western Aerospace’s counsel multiple

times in telephone calls, e-mails, and letters. The letter and spirit of Rule 37, however, do not

focus on the quantity but rather the quality of communications. Inherent in the requirement of a

good faith effort to resolve the matter without the Court’s intervention is that the parties

negotiate and attempt to compromise until no additional progress is possible, the equivalent of

an impasse in negotiations in traditional labor law. In this case, no impasse was reached. 

Instead, counsel spoke via telephone on November 2 and 9. Glowczyk’s counsel sent a letter to

Western Aerospace’s counsel dated November 10, 2006 requesting supplemental responses to

the discovery requests, memorializing counsel’s discussions regarding their requested

depositions, suggesting that the parties further discuss the issue of a Rule 37 Joint Submission,

and noting that with regard to the discovery requests, “[t]here are other answers which we will

need to further discuss.” Declaration of Roger Kindley, (Dkt. #27) (“Kindley Decl.”), Ex. at p.

47. Despite the suggestion for further discussions, counsel never discussed the discovery

requests again prior to filing this motion. Instead, Glowczyk’s counsel sent an e-mail after

normal business hours on November 15, 2006 requesting agreement to file a Rule 37 Joint

Submission. Western Aerospace’s counsel responded early in the morning on November 16,

requesting to know what issues defense counsel believed must be submitted to the Court. 

Declaration of Randall Beighle, (Dkt. #30) (“Beighle Decl.”), Ex. C (“We have provided the

discovery requested by Glowczyk and you need to tell us what discovery is still owed”). 

Defense counsel responded by explaining that although he requested “all financial data,” he was

unable to locate those documents in the production and requesting to know which document

numbers represented the financial documents. Id. Glowczyk filed a motion to compel later that

same day, without waiting for Western Aerospace’s counsel’s responsive e-mail sent at 5:28

Case 2:06-cv-00896-RSL Document 36 Filed 12/20/06 Page 2 of 4
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- 3

p.m. which identified the financial documents already produced by Bates numbers.

The communications leading up the motion reflect mutual efforts to cooperate and several

vague demands for additional information to supplement the discovery responses, followed by

Glowczyk precipitously filing this motion. Western Aerospace’s counsel was attempting to

cooperate by producing the requested documents and responding to Glowczyk’s inquiries. At

the time the motion was filed, it is clear that the parties were continuing to make progress in

resolving the dispute. Because Glowczyk’s counsel failed to meet and confer in good faith prior

to bringing this motion, it is denied.

For the sake of efficiency, the Court will address the remaining issues in Glowczyk’s

motion. First, it appears that all responsive documents have now been produced. Second,

Glowczyk’s request for sanctions is denied as unwarranted and because he failed to comply with

the meet and confer requirement. Third, the Court will not strike Western Aerospace’s

objections to the discovery responses as untimely as Glowczyk requests. Glowczyk notes that

Western Aerospace’s responses and objections were due on October 26, 2006 but were not

received until November 3, 2006. Western Aerospace responds that it was focusing on the

parties’ mediation, which occurred in the interim. Western Aerospace should have requested an

extension to provide the responses and objections late. However, the delay is understandable in

light of the intervening mediation. Also, Glowczyk has not shown any resulting prejudice, and

striking the objections is too extreme a sanction for a brief one-week delay. Western Aerospace

also asserts that Glowczyk failed to timely produce some requested information in discovery. 

Although Glowczyk claims that his own delay is irrelevant to this motion, it further undermines

his request for sanctions against Western Aerospace.

Glowczyk also alleges that although Western Aerospace has stated that it has produced

all non-privileged documents, it has not produced a privilege log. If Western Aerospace has

withheld some responsive documents based on a claim of privilege, it must produce a privilege

log within two weeks of this order.

Case 2:06-cv-00896-RSL Document 36 Filed 12/20/06 Page 3 of 4
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- 4

Finally, Western Aerospace has requested that the Court impose sanctions on Glowczyk

for filing this motion without complying with the meet and confer requirement. As set forth

above, Glowczyk filed this motion even though counsel were still in the process of cooperating

to resolve the dispute. Although Glowczyk accuses Western Aerospace of refusing to respond

fully prior to the motion, Western Aerospace produced a large number of documents prior to the

motion. Glowczyk also alleges that there were gaps in the documents Western Aerospace

produced on CD’s, but it appears that some of those gaps and the resulting delay were due to

defense counsel’s lack of knowledge of how to access the CD’s. Moreover, the communications

show that before he filed this motion, Glowczyk did not clearly or specifically inform Western

Aerospace of the alleged shortcomings in the responses. Once he did so, Western Aerospace

promptly provided the requested information. For all of these reasons, the Court seriously

considered the imposition of sanctions for Glowczyk’s failure to more fully confer in good faith

prior to filing this motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. However, the Court has decided to admonish

counsel instead and to encourage both sides to meet and confer face-to-face in the future to

avoid misunderstandings and mis-communications.

III. CONCLUSION

For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Glowczyk’s motion to compel (Dkt.

#26) and denies both parties’ requests for sanctions. 

DATED this 20th day of December, 2006.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge 

Case 2:06-cv-00896-RSL Document 36 Filed 12/20/06 Page 4 of 4