Becker v. Tig Insurance Company ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 MATTHEW BECKER, et al., CASE NO. 3:21-cv-05185-JHC 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER 9 v. 10 TIG INSURANCE CO., et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 14 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Unsupported 15 Boilerplate Objections, Remove Redactions, Compel Responses to Requests for Production 16 Without Objections, and Award Plaintiffs Their Fees and Costs (the “Motion”). Dkt. # 44. 17 Defendant TIG Insurance Company opposes the motion. Dkt. # 46. Plaintiffs did not file a reply 18 in support of the Motion. Having reviewed the filings and the record the Court DENIES the 19 Motion. As TIG indicates, the Motion is based on a misapplication of Burlington Northern & 20 Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Montana, 408 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2005), and the 21 law does not support the specific relief requested by Plaintiffs. This ruling is without prejudice 22 as to other relief Plaintiffs may seek in connection with the requests for production at issue. 23 24 l The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 2 || to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. 3 Dated this 24th day of May, 2022. 4 A. Chur 5 John H. Chun United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24