Floyd v. Amazon.com Inc.
Floyd v. Amazon.com Inc.
2024 WL 5040453 (W.D. Wash. 2024)
November 5, 2024
Evanson, Kymberly K., United States District Judge
Summary
Plaintiff Steven Floyd and Defendants Apple Inc. and Amazon.com Inc. are in a dispute over discovery requests and Floyd's failure to comply with a court order. The court has ordered Floyd's counsel to produce all non-privileged communications between themselves and Floyd, as well as a privilege log, to determine the appropriate course of action for the pending motions and sanctions.
Additional Decisions
Steven FLOYD, et al., Plaintiff(s),
v.
AMAZON.COM INC., et al., Defendant(s)
v.
AMAZON.COM INC., et al., Defendant(s)
CASE NO. C22-1599-KKE
United States District Court, W.D. Washington, at Seattle
Signed November 05, 2024
Counsel
Ben Harrington, Pro Hac Vice, Benjamin Siegel, Pro Hac Vice, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Berkeley, CA, Barbara Mahoney, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff Steven Floyd.Barbara Mahoney, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Seattle, WA, for Intervenor Plaintiffs Jolene Furdek, Jonathan Ryan.
Benjamin M. Mundel, Pro Hac Vice, Jacquelyn Fradette, Pro Hac Vice, Jonathan E. Nuechterlein, Pro Hac Vice, Mark D. Hopson, Pro Hac Vice, Sidley Austin, Washington, DC, William Connor Lavery, Pro Hac Vice, Clifford Chance U.S. LLP, Washington, DC, Jon Dugan, Pro Hac Vice, Redgrave LLP, Washington, DC, Chad Samuel Hummel, Pro Hac Vice, McKool Smith PC, Los Angeles, CA, John Goldmark, MaryAnn T. Almeida, Davis Wright Tremaine, Seattle, WA, for Defendant Amazon.com Inc.
Brian Liegel, Pro Hac Vice, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Miami, FL, Eric Shaun Hochstadt, Pro Hac Vice, Weil Gotshal & Manges, New York, NY, Mark Andrew Perry, Pro Hac Vice, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Washington, DC, Morgan MacBride, Pro Hac Vice, Weil Gotshal & Manges, Redwood Shores, CA, Jeremy E. Roller, Arete Law Group PLLC, Seattle, WA, Mark Steven Parris, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Seattle, WA, for Defendant Apple Inc.
Evanson, Kymberly K., United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND REQUIRING SUPPLEMENTAL PRODUCTION
*1 The Court previously conditioned Plaintiff Steven Floyd's withdrawal as a named plaintiff in this case upon his responding to outstanding discovery requests and sitting for a deposition. Dkt. No. 132. Floyd has not complied with this order, and his counsel now seeks to withdraw their representation on the grounds that their relationship with him is broken. Dkt. No. 140.[1] Defendant Apple Inc. does not oppose the motion, but requests that the Court impose conditions before permitting Floyd's counsel to withdraw. Dkt. No. 143.
After Floyd's counsel filed the motion to withdraw representation, Apple and Defendant Amazon.com Inc. filed a motion for discovery sanctions against Floyd for his failure to comply with the Court's order. Dkt. No. 152. Defendants request that the Court order Floyd to show cause why he should not be held in contempt, and that if he does not do so, the Court should consider imposing additional requirements. Id. Floyd's counsel does not oppose the motion. Dkt. No. 156.
With respect to the motion to withdraw representation, Apple[2] requests that as a condition of withdrawal, the Court order Floyd's counsel to provide all of their communications to/from Floyd since January 2024 for in camera review, and provide to Defendants any non-privileged communications with Floyd since January 2024 along with a privilege log for the in camera submissions, “with information sufficient to show the method of communication, the sender/copied/recipient information, the subject line, and any attachments of draft filings or filings and their file names.” Dkt. No. 143 at 6.
“The decision to grant or deny counsel's motion to withdraw is ultimately committed to the discretion of the trial court.” Fujifilm Sonosite, Inc. v. Imaging Specialists Grp., LLC, No. C13-983 RSM, 2014 WL 1400992, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 10, 2014). “When ruling on motions to withdraw, courts consider: (1) the reasons why withdrawal is sought; (2) the prejudice withdrawal may cause to other litigants; (3) the harm withdrawal might cause to the administration of justice; and (4) the degree to which withdrawal will delay the resolution of the case.” 3M Co. v. Aime LLC, No. 2:20-cv-01086-TL-BAT, 2023 WL 1863517, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 9, 2023) (quoting Bernstein v. City of Los Angeles, No. CV 19-03349 PA (GJSx), 2020 WL 4288443, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2020)).
In this case, the Court agrees with Apple that more information from Floyd's counsel is needed in order to resolve questions of delay, prejudice, and harm to the administration of justice, before the Court can adjudicate the motion to withdraw representation. Likewise, that same information is needed before the Court can determine the appropriate sanction, if any, for Floyd's failure to comply with this Court's order. Thus, the Court will deny without prejudice both motions, subject to re-filing after the production as follows:
*2 (1) No later than November 15, 2024, Floyd's counsel is ORDERED to produce all non-privileged communications to/from Floyd since the date that Defendants first propounded their discovery requests through November 5, 2024.[3] Floyd's counsel must also produce a privilege log for all privileged communications to/from Floyd since the date that Defendants’ first discovery requests were propounded through November 5, 2024, indicating the method of communication, the sender/copied/recipient information, the subject line, and any attachments of draft filings or filings and their file names.(2) Upon review of the non-privileged communications and the privilege log detailed in subsection (1), Defendants may file an appropriate motion no later than December 2, 2024, including but not limited to a motion for in camera review of communication(s) listed on the privilege log.(3) Floyd's counsel's motion to withdraw representation and Defendants’ motion for sanctions (Dkt. Nos. 140, 152) are DENIED without prejudice, subject to refiling after any motion filed by Defendants (as contemplated in subsection (2)) is resolved.
Footnotes
This order refers to the parties’ briefing using CM/ECF page numbers.
Amazon takes no position on Floyd's counsel's motion to withdraw and does not join Apple's opposition to this motion. Dkt. No. 145.
It appears that Floyd objected to discovery requests in October 2023 (Dkt. No. 90 at 31–75), but it is not clear when Defendants propounded those requests. Defendants have accused Floyd of failing to respond substantively to discovery requests even before he failed to comply with the Court's order granting the motion to compel. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 86 at 14. Given that Floyd's responses and non-responses to discovery requests have been and continue to be at issue, the Court finds it appropriate to seek information dating back to when Floyd's obligation to respond to discovery requests began running.