Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (W.D. Wash., Apr. 22, 2019)

Our plain-English summary of Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington, April 22, 2019).

The estate of Rudie Klopman-Baerselman sued a number of companies, alleging that he died of mesothelioma after asbestos exposure as a professional and home auto mechanic. The estate alleged that asbestos-containing auto parts were found in his garage and that he bought many of them at Schuck's Auto Parts stores in Vancouver and Camas, Washington. O'Reilly, which is responsible for Schuck's, gave discovery answers that the estate called evasive and incomplete. The estate asked the court to compel better answers and to impose sanctions. The court found the estate had tried in good faith to resolve the dispute. It found at least four of O'Reilly's responses clearly insufficient: two about the Schuck's stores, one about a document retention policy, and one about the purchase agreement with CSK Auto. It described many other answers as hard to believe. The court noted that it would not compel production of materials that do not exist. It ordered O'Reilly to serve complete answers by May 13, 2019, and declined to impose sanctions at that time, while warning O'Reilly's counsel.

We wrote this summary from the court's opinion with the help of AI. It is not the court's wording, and it is not legal advice. The full opinion is below.

The decision

• Court: U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington
• Decided: April 22, 2019
• Docket: Case No. 3:18-cv-05536-RJB
• Stage: Discovery or evidence ruling
• State: Washington

Outcome. The court granted in part and denied in part the estate's motion to compel, ordering O'Reilly to serve complete answers to the interrogatories and document requests by May 13, 2019, and declining to impose sanctions.

What the court held. A party must give complete, non-evasive answers to discovery requests within Rule 26's scope, and the court will not compel production of materials that do not exist. Sanctions under Rule 37 were within the court's discretion and were declined at this time.

Issues decided: Trial Procedure and Discovery.

The people and their exposure

• Rudie Klopman-Baerselman: mesothelioma; died

Who	Work	Where	When	Products
Rudie Klopman-Baerselman	professional and home auto mechanic	Decedent's garage; parts bought at Schuck's Auto Parts stores, Vancouver, Washington	1960-2002	brakes, clutches and friction materials, gaskets and packing, Schuck's brakes, clutches, and gaskets

The defendants

• O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc. (supplier)

Other decisions in this case

Other rulings from the same court in the same case, in our library:

• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (March 11, 2019). The court granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint to add DCo LLC as a defendant, over DCo's opposition.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (March 13, 2019). The district court denied O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, so the plaintiff's claims against O'Reilly (Schuck's) go forward.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (June 4, 2019). The court denied National Automotive Parts Association's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, so the plaintiff estate won this motion and the case against NAPA continues.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (August 5, 2019). The court granted Standard Motor Products' unopposed motion for summary judgment and dismissed it from the case because the plaintiff offered no evidence that the decedent was exposed to an SMP product.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (August 8, 2019). The court granted Cost Less Auto Parts, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and dismissed it from the case, ruling against the estate of Rudie Klopman-Baerselman.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (September 19, 2019). The court granted Henry Company LLC's motion for summary judgment and dismissed it from the case because the plaintiff offered no evidence that Henry made an asbestos-containing product the decedent used.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (September 20, 2019). The court granted summary judgment to Standard Motor Products and Parker-Hannifin and dismissed them from the case because the plaintiff could not show the decedent was exposed to asbestos-containing EIS brakes they made or sold.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (October 9, 2019). The court granted Air & Liquid Systems Corporation's motion for summary judgment and dismissed it from the case, because the plaintiff estate did not show the decedent was exposed to an asbestos product attributable to Air & Liquid.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (October 15, 2019). The federal district court granted Ingersoll-Rand's motion for summary judgment and dismissed it from the case, because the plaintiff did not show that the decedent was exposed to any asbestos-containing Ingersoll-Rand product.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (October 18, 2019). The court granted in part and denied in part Toyota Motor Corporation's and Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.'s renewed motion for a protective order, and set the final form of the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notices the plaintiff estate could use.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (December 5, 2019). The court granted Crosby Valve's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Crosby Valve from the case, ruling against the plaintiff estate.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (December 5, 2019). The court denied the plaintiff estate's two motions for partial summary judgment against the defendants' affirmative defenses of alternative asbestos exposure in the Dutch Merchant Marine and at Tektronix, so the defendants kept those defenses.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (December 10, 2019). The court granted in part and denied in part Pneumo Abex's summary judgment motion: the Washington product liability claim survived for trial, while the plaintiff's other claims (negligence, conspiracy, Restatement 402A/402B strict liability, premises liability) were dismissed.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (December 12, 2019). The court denied Honeywell's summary judgment motion on the Washington product liability claim, granted it on plaintiff's other broad claims (negligence, conspiracy, 402A/402B, premises, catch-all), and denied it without prejudice on the inadequately briefed admission and punitive damages issues.
• Klopman-Baerselman v. Air & Liquid Systems Corporation (December 16, 2019). The court granted Foster Wheeler's summary judgment motion and dismissed all claims against it for lack of product-identification evidence, and granted plaintiff's motion holding Foster Wheeler waived its Dutch-law limitations defense.

The court's opinion

The text below is Google Scholar's copy of the court's opinion, a public record. Numbers in brackets, such as [*921], mark where each page of the printed reporter begins.

ERIC KLOPMAN-BAERSELMAN, as Personal Representative for the Estate of RUDIE KLOPMAN-

BAERSELMAN, deceased, Plaintiff,

v.

AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION, etal., Defendants.

Case No. 3:18-cv-05536-RJB.

April 22, 2019.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma.

Rudie Klopman-Baerselman, deceased & Muriel Klopman-Baerselman, husband and wife, Plaintiffs, represented by Alexandra B. Caggiano, WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC, Benjamin Robert Couture, WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC & Brian Weinstein, WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC.

Eric Klopman-Baerselman, as Personal Representative for the, estate of Rudie Klopman-Baerselman, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra B. Caggiano, WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC, Benjamin Robert Couture, WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC, Brian Weinstein, WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC & Benjamin H. Adams, DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP, pro hac vice.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation, individually & Ingersoll-Rand Company, a New Jersey corporation, Defendants, represented by Kevin J. Craig, GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP, Mark B. Tuvim, GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP & Trevor J. Mohr, GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP.

Borg Warner Morse Tec, LLC, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Richard D. Ross, BENNETT BIGELOW & LEEDOM.

CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher S. Marks, TANENBAUM KEALE LLP, Erin P. Fraser, TANENBAUM KEALE LLP & Malika Johnson, TANENBAUM KEALE LLP.

Cost Less Auto Parts, Inc., a Washington corporation, Defendant, represented by Howard Terry I. Hall, FOLEY & MANSFIELD & Diane Catherine Babbitt, FOLEY & MANSFIELD.

Crosby Valve Inc, a Massachusetts corporation & Viad Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Defendants, represented by Ronald C. Gardner, GARDNER TRABOLSI & ASSOC. PLLC.

DAP Products, Inc., a Maryland corporation, Defendant, represented by Diane Catherine Babbitt, FOLEY & MANSFIELD & J. Scott Wood, FOLEY & MANSFIELD.

Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, sued as, Defendant, represented by Christine E. Dinsdale, SOHA & LANG PS, Frances Lopez, HAWKINS PARNELL THACKSTON & YOUNG LLP, pro hac vice & Rachel A. Rubin, SOHA & LANG PS.

Flowserve US Inc, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Marc Marshall Carlton, LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP & Randy J. Aliment, LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP.

Foster Wheeler Energy Corporation, a Delaware corporation & General Electric Company, a New York corporation, Defendants, represented by Christopher S. Marks, TANENBAUM KEALE LLP & Erin P. Fraser, TANENBAUM KEALE LLP. Genuine Parts Company, a Georgia corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeanne F. Loftis, BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC & Megan Uhle, BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC.

Henry Company LLC, a California corporation, Defendant, represented by Daira S. Waldenberg, SELMAN BRIETMAN LLP. Honeywell International, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Kristine E. Kruger, PERKINS COIE & Mary Z. Gaston, PERKINS COIE.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a New York corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of, Defendant, represented by Richard G. Gawlowski, WILSON SMITH COCHRAN & DICKERSON.

National Automotive Parts Association, a Georgia corporation, Defendant, represented by Megan Uhle, BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC.

O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc, an Ohio corporation, Defendant, represented by Stephen Garrett Leatham, HEURLIN POTTER JAHN, LEATHAM, HOLTMAN & STOKER PS.

Parker-Hannifin Corporation, an Ohio corporation & Standard Motor Products, Inc., a New York corporation, Defendants, represented by Diane Catherine Babbitt, FOLEY & MANSFIELD, Howard Terry I. Hall, FOLEY & MANSFIELD, J. Scott Wood, FOLEY & MANSFIELD & R. Dirk Bernhardt, FOLEY & MANSFIELD.

Pneumo Abex, LLC, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Diane J. Kero, GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL. Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation, Defendant, represented by John Michael Mattingly, RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC & Kevin Clonts, RIZZO MATTINGLY BOSWORTH PC.

Toyota Motor Sales USA Inc, a California corporation, Defendant, represented by Jose Edward Gaitan, THE GAITAN GROUP & Virginia Leeper, THE GAITAN GROUP.

Viking Pump Inc, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, represented by Todd M. Thacker, WFBM LLP.

Weir Valves & Controls USA Inc, a Massachusetts corporation, individually and as, Defendant, represented by Dana C. Kopij, WILLIAMS KASTNER & GIBBS.

William Powell Company, an Ohio corporation, Defendant, represented by Brian Bernard Smith, FOLEY & MANSFIELD & James D. Hicks, FOLEY & MANSFIELD.

WW Henry Company LP, a Pennsylvania corporation, Defendant, represented by Gary T. Tandberg, WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER, pro hac vice, Jeff Bone, CORR CRONIN, LLP, William Randolph Squires, III, CORR CRONIN, LLP, Kevin C. Baumgardner, CORR CRONIN, LLP & Robert G. Engel, WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER.

Toyota Motor Corporation, a Japanese corporation, Defendant, represented by Virginia Leeper, THE GAITAN GROUP. DCO LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael Edward Ricketts, GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL.

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

ROBERT J. BRYAN, District Judge.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Further Answers to Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents from Defendant O'Reilly Automotive Stores, Inc. ("Motion to Compel"). Dkt. 181. Oral argument is unnecessary to decide the motion.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court should grant, in part, and deny, in part, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. I. BACKGROUND

This Motion to Compel arises from a case regarding the mesothelioma-related death of Mr. Rudie Klopman-Baerselman's ("Decedent"), for which Plaintiff alleges Defendants are liable. Dkt. 181. Plaintiff alleges that Decedent was exposed to asbestos as a professional and home auto mechanic. Plaintiff alleges to have discovered numerous asbestos-containing auto parts in Decedent's garage. Decedent allegedly purchased many of the asbestos-containing auto parts from Schuck's Auto Parts stores in Vancouver, Washington, and Camas, Washington.

Defendant O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC ("O'Reilly"; elsewhere in the record referred to as "CSK"), formerly known as CSK Auto, Inc., is apparently responsible for the Schuck's Auto Parts Stores ("Schuck's"). Dkt. 181. Schuck's was an automotive

parts retailer throughout Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and Montana. Dkt. 164-3, at 10. Schuck's was acquired by O'Reilly in 1987. Dkt. 164-3, at 10.

On November 28, 2018, Plaintiff served on O'Reilly a First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production, as well as a First Set of Requests for Admission. Dkt. 181, at 2-3. On December 20, 2018, O'Reilly apparently emailed Plaintiff requesting an extension to answer the discovery requests. Dkt. 181, at 3. Plaintiff granted the extension. Dkt. 181, at 3. On January 11, 2019, O'Reilly apparently served its initial Answers and Responses to Plaintiff's First Interrogatories and Requests for Production, as well as its Responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Admission. Dkt. 181, at 3. In its initial answers and responses, O'Reilly apparently did not produce any documents, nor did it provide any information concerning the Schuck's in Vancouver, Washington. Dkt. 181, at 3; see Dkt. 187.

On February 14, 2019, Plaintiff emailed O'Reilly a response detailing the alleged deficiencies in O'Reilly's answers and responses. Dkt. 182-10. On February 15, 2019, counsel for O'Reilly emailed back a response, "I can't discuss all of this with you until next week. I'll let you know when I have the client input I need." Dkt. 181, at 4.

Plaintiff alleges that, after seven days, Plaintiff's counsel called, left a voicemail, and sent an email to O'Reilly's counsel. Dkt. 181, at 4. O'Reilly's counsel responded by email, "I'll bug them again, Ben. I still have nothing back from the client." Dkt. 181, at 4. O'Reilly's counsel continued, "The person I need to speak to has been and is out, and now I am having surgery on Monday. We have set up a call for next Friday morning [(March 1, 2019)], so I can respond substantively after that. Sorry for the delay." Dkt. 182-16, at 2. Plaintiff's counsel asked to speak with O'Reilly's counsel that Friday, March 1, 2019. Dkt. 181, at 5.

On March 28, 2019, apparently after receiving no response from O'Reilly, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel requesting sufficient answers and responses to its discovery requests and sanctions against O'Reilly. Dkt. 181. O'Reilly's counsel alleges that it had prepared a detailed email response to Plaintiff but inadvertently did not sent it, possibly "due to the aftereffects of surgery."[1] Dkt. 187, at 3. O'Reilly's counsel modified the email and sent it to Plaintiff on March 29, 2019. Dkt. 187, at 3.

On April 8, 2019, O'Reilly responded in opposition to Plaintiff's instant Motion to Compel:

Many of the issues [Plaintiff alleges in the instant Motion to Compel] should be resolved by [the email O'Reilly's counsel sent to Plaintiff] and the parties' ensuing telephone conversation. For example, CSK agreed to and will delete its general objections to the discovery requests. CSK will respond regarding the Vancouver store.[[2]] CSK has confirmed that it possesses no responsive documents for the relevant

timeframe regarding the products CSK carried and sold, or financial information regarding such sales. CSK has confirmed that it has no information to enable it to answer as to when CSK acquired knowledge or warned about products. CSK will produce the document retention policies it has been able to locate.' Dkt. 187, at 3.

On April 10, 2019, O'Reilly served on the Parties amended answers and responses to Plaintiff's First Interrogatories and Requests for Production. Dkt. 192-1.

In its reply in support of the Motion to Compel, Plaintiff argues, "Even as amended, O'Reilly's discovery responses are so devoid of information as to be almost worthless. ... O'Reilly's responses remain highly evasive and incomplete. And O'Reilly's document production is still grossly insufficient." Dkt. 193, at 2. Plaintiff maintains its request for sanctions against O'Reilly. Dkt. 193, at 6.

II. DISCUSSION

A. INSUFFICIENT RESPONSES

On notice to other parties and all affected persons, a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to

confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1).

The Court does not provide individualized discussion for each amended response alleged to be deficient in Plaintiff's reply to the Motion to Compel. The Court notes that Plaintiff's efforts to communicate with O'Reilly between February 14, 2019, and March 1, 2019, constituted a good faith conferral or attempt to confer with O'Reilly to obtain the requested disclosures and discovery without court action.

With respect to many interrogatories and requests for production, O'Reilly claims that it does not have the materials or information requested by Plaintiff. Dkt. 192-1. O'Reilly contends that it did not acquire CSK until 2008 and that it has little information about the business it purchased.

Many of O'Reilly's responses are incredible and hard to believe (e.g., O'Reilly's responses to Interrogatory No. 22 (Dkt. 192-1, at 12); Request for Production No. 35 (Dkt. 192-1, at 26); and Request for Production No. 46 (Dkt. 192-1, at 30)). O'Reilly's responses to Interrogatories No. 3-17 are especially hard to believe. See Dkt. 192-1, at 3-10. In effect, O'Reilly's responses to Interrogatories No. 3-17 amount to O'Reilly having had its head in the sand with respect to every brake, clutch, and gasket that may or may not have ever been sold by O'Reilly and its related entities. This is especially problematic because Schuck's brakes, clutches, and gaskets appear to be the products most central to this case as it relates to O'Reilly. Nevertheless, the Court should not compel production of materials and answers that do not exist.[3] But the Court cautions O'Reilly:

If a party fails to provide information or identify a witness as required by Rule 26(a) or (e), the party is not allowed to use that information or witness to supply evidence on a motion, at a hearing, or at a trial, unless the failure was substantially justified or is harmless. In addition to or instead of this sanction, the court, on motion and after giving an opportunity to be heard [,] may impose other appropriate sanctions[.]

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1)(C).

Although the Court cannot divine the responses appropriate to all of Plaintiff's discovery requests, at least four of O'Reilly's amended responses were clearly insufficient.

1. Interrogatory No. 1:

Was there ever a Schuck's Auto Supply store in Camas, Washington? If YOUR answer is anything other than no, please state:

1. The address of each Schuck's Auto Supply store;

2. The time period (start date and end date) when each store was open;

3. The phone number of each store;

4. The identity of the manager of each store.

[]

ANSWER: Objection. Plaintiff contends that decedent was exposed to asbestos while performing automotive repair and replacement work from approximately 1960 to 2002. Plaintiff contends that decedent bought automotive parts from time to time at a Schuck's store in Camas, Washington. Questions seeking information during any other time frame and regarding any other store are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seek information that is irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving said objections, there were no Schuck's Auto Supply stores in Camas Washington prior to December 1999.

Dkt. 192-1, at 3.

O'Reilly's objection is without merit. If the relevant timeframe related to this interrogatory is from 1960 to 2002, which it appears to be, then O'Reilly's objection appears not to grasp that December 1999 falls within that timeframe. To the extent that O'Reilly's objection suggests that current (or any time beyond 2002) basic store information and manager contact information is irrelevant, the Court disagrees. Basic store information and contact information of store managers may be useful in discovering who knows something about Schuck's history of auto parts sales, of which O'Reilly claims to know almost nothing. Regardless, the Court observes that O'Reilly's legal talents would be better spent preparing for settlement or trial, and not squabbling over basic, routine discovery requests.

O'Reilly's response to Interrogatory No. 1 is insufficient.

2. Interrogatory No. 2:

Was there ever a Schuck's Auto Supply store in Vancouver, Washington? If YOUR answer is anything other than no, please state:

1. The address of each Schuck's Auto Supply store;

2. The time period (start date and end date) when each store was open;

3. The phone number of each store; and

4. The identity of the manager of each store.

[]

ANSWER: Objection. Plaintiff contends that decedent was exposed to asbestos while performing automotive repair and replacement work from approximately 1960 to 2002. Plaintiff contends that decedent bought automotive parts from time to time at a Schuck's store on Mill Plain Boulevard in Vancouver, Washington. Questions seeking information during any other time frame and regarding any other stores are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seek information that is irrelevant to this action and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Without waiving said objections, there were no Schuck's Auto Supply stores on Mill Plain Boulevard in Vancouver, Washington prior to July 1982.

Dkt. 192-1, at 3.

O'Reilly's response to Interrogatory No. 2 is insufficient for the same reasons discussed in Interrogatory No. 1, examined above. Additionally, the Court notes that O'Reilly's amended answer is particularly disappointing, and perhaps misleading, in light of the significantly delayed email response O'Reilly's counsel sent Plaintiff, in which he promised that "CSK will respond regarding the Vancouver store." Dkt. 187, at 3.

3. Request for Production No. 46:

Please produce YOUR most recent document retention policy.

[]

RESPONSE: See objections and responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1 through 3 and 22. As the company

acquiring the assets of CSK, O'Reilly does not possess any responsive documents.

Dkt. 192-1, at 30.

O'Reilly's response, apparently partly copied and pasted, is nonresponsive, incomplete, and evasive. O'Reilly's acquisition of CSK has no bearing on O'Reilly's most recent document retention policy. Even if O'Reilly somehow, improbably, has no document retention policy, it should have said so. If it does have a document retention policy, it should have provided it. The Court notes that document retention policy information may be relevant to acquiring product information and employee records, and may be helpful in determining the veracity of O'Reilly's numerous objections to Plaintiff's discovery requests. Additionally, the Court notes that O'Reilly's amended answer is particularly disappointing, and perhaps misleading, in light of the significantly delayed email response O'Reilly's counsel sent Plaintiff, in which he promised that "CSK will produce the document retention policies it has been able to locate." Dkt. 187, at 3.

O'Reilly's response to Request for Production No. 46 is insufficient.

4. Request for Production No. 50:

Please produce the contract and/or purchase agreement between YOU and CSK Auto, Inc.

[]

RESPONSE: Objection. The requested documents are publicly available on-line, and are as available to plaintiff as they are to CSK. Furthermore, the purchase and sale documents are voluminous, making this request overly broad and unduly burdensome.

Dkt. 192-1, at 31-32.

O'Reilly's bare assertion that the purchase and sale documents are publicly available online is belied by its initial response to requests for production, where it objected that "[t]he requested documents contain confidential business information that CSK is precluded from disclosing." Dkt. 182-8, at 45. Regardless, Plaintiff contends that it does not have access to the purchase and sale documents. Dkt. 193, at 4.

O'Reilly's objection that production of the purchase and sale documents is overly broad and unduly burdensome is also without merit. Plaintiff clearly identified the relevant transaction and clearly identified the requested materials: "the contract and/or purchase agreement between YOU and CSK Auto, Inc." Dkt. 192-1, at 31-32. This does not appear overly voluminous, overly broad, or unduly burdensome.

Moreover, given O'Reilly's numerous incredible objections to requests for production and interrogatories, the Court observes that the contents of the purchase and sale agreement between O'Reilly and CSK may shed light on the veracity of O'Reilly's objections that it does not have many requested materials related to Schuck's and CSK—including basic employee, inventory, training, and sales records.

O'Reilly's response to Request for Production No. 50 is insufficient.

The four responses discussed above are only examples of O'Reilly's insufficient responses. O'Reilly should examine and revise its answers to Plaintiff's requests for production and interrogatories as may be appropriate. B. SANCTIONS

Courts are given broad discretion to control discovery under FRCP 37, including "particularly wide latitude. . . to issue sanctions under FRCP 37(c)(1)[.]" Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High Sch. Dist., 768 F.3d 843, 859 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001)).

The Court is sympathetic to O'Reilly's counsel's shoulder surgery experience, but it cautions counsel that a pattern of ignoring deadlines and objecting overbroadly to basic discovery requests is unacceptable.

At this time, the Court declines to impose sanctions against O'Reilly.

C. CONCLUSION

Despite Plaintiff's apparent efforts (see Dkts. 181 and 193) to improve the flow of discovery and to obtain the requested disclosures and discovery, at least four, and possibly many more, of O'Reilly's responses do not sufficiently answer Plaintiff's interrogatories and requests for production. Under the circumstances, O'Reilly should be compelled to produce all discovery, within the scope and limits of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, requested by Plaintiff. To maintain the trial and pretrial schedule ordered in Dkt. 174, O'Reilly should serve and file an adequate answer to Plaintiff's First Interrogatories and Requests for Production (as seen in Dkt. 192-1) no later than May 13, 2019.

III. ORDER

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that:

• Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Dkt. 181) is GRANTED, IN PART, and DENIED, IN PART. The motion is

GRANTED as follows:

○ Defendant O'Reilly shall serve and file a sufficient and complete answer, within the scope of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, to Plaintiff's First Interrogatories and Requests for Production (as seen in Dkt. 192-1) no later than May 13, 2019.

• The motion is otherwise DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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.

[1] O'Reilly's counsel apparently had shoulder surgery on February 25, 2019. Dkt. 187, at 3.

[2] O'Reilly had previously objected per relevancy to providing responses regarding the Schuck's in Vancouver, Washington. Dkt. 182-9. [3] This should not be construed as the Court ruling that any materials do not exist.

Sources

• The opinion on Google Scholar
• Washington asbestos laws
• Washington asbestos exposure sites