Amy Lobdell v. Kone Inc.

 HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 10 AMY LOBDELL, an individual, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-00938-RAJ 11 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION TO 12 COMPEL DISCOVERY v. RESPONSES 13 KONE INC., a foreign corporation. 14 Defendant. 15 16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 18 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiff Amy Lobdell’s Motion to 19 Compel Discovery Responses (the “Motion,” Dkt. # 25). Plaintiff filed an initial reply in 20 support of the Motion (Dkt. #29), arguing that the Motion should be granted in light of 21 Defendant’s failure to respond by the applicable deadline. Defendant KONE Inc. 22 (“Defendant” or “KONE”) then filed an untimely Opposition to the Motion (the 23 “Opposition,” Dkt. # 33), which the Court declined to strike, instead imposing sanctions 24 on Defendant’s counsel. Dkt. # 39. Thereafter, pursuant to the Court’s order, Plaintiff 25 filed a second reply in support of the Motion and in response to Defendant’s Opposition 26 (the “Reply,” Dkt. # 40). 27 1 The Court reviewed the Motion, Opposition, Reply, and all supporting declarations, 2 and subsequently adjudicated all outstanding issues related to the Motion during a 3 telephonic discovery conference held on November 14, 2025. Dkt. # 49. This Order will 4 serve as a memorialization of the specific rulings made during the November 14 discovery 5 conference. 6 II. BACKGROUND 7 This action stems from a complaint originally filed by Plaintiff in King County 8 Superior Court on July 31, 2024, Case No. 24-2-12689-9 SEA, and removed to this Court 9 by Defendant on September 10, 2024, on the basis of diversity and federal question 10 jurisdiction. Dkt. # 1 at 6 (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a)). 11 Plaintiff was employed at KONE’s Seattle branch from August 1, 2017 to December 12 6, 2023; Plaintiff was hired as a Service Supervisor and later promoted to Service 13 Operations Manager in July 2020. Dkt. # 1-1 ¶¶ 3.3, 3.5. Plaintiff alleges that she “was 14 treated dismissively, disrespectfully, and faced verbal aggression and intimidation” due to 15 her sex during her employment at KONE. Dkt. # 25 at 2. Plaintiff was ultimately 16 terminated by Defendant after she purportedly violated KONE’s Americans with 17 Disabilities Act (“ADA”) policy and failed to cooperate and participate truthfully in the 18 resulting internal investigation. Id. Plaintiff, who asserts that sex was the motivating factor 19 in her termination, brings claims against KONE arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights 20 Act of 1964 and the Washington State Law Against Discrimination. Id. 21 On May 29, 2025, Plaintiff filed the Motion, seeking Defendant’s responses to 22 Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production. Dkt. # 25. Plaintiff 23 moves the Court to compel Defendant to: (1) run searches covering the date range of 24 August 1, 2017 through December 6, 2023, the full date range of Plaintiff’s employment 25 at KONE; (2) search for and produce non-privileged documents from attorney custodians; 26 and (3) conduct nationwide searches for material responsive to certain of Plaintiff’s 27 interrogatories and requests. Dkt. # 25 at 1. Defendant failed to timely respond to the 1 Motion, and Plaintiff accordingly filed a reply requesting that the Court grant the Motion 2 in its entirety. Dkt. # 29. Defendant thereafter filed the Opposition, stating that it has 3 complied with its discovery obligations and arguing that Plaintiff is neither entitled to 4 discovery across the requested time period, nor review and production from attorney 5 custodians, nor nationwide discovery. Dkt. # 33. Plaintiff filed a motion to strike 6 Defendant’s Opposition as untimely. Dkt. # 34. Following the parties’ completion of 7 briefing on Plaintiff’s motion to strike the Opposition, the Court ultimately declined to 8 strike Defendant’s response, but imposed sanctions upon Defendant in the form of 9 attorney’s fees incurred while Plaintiff prepared the motion to strike. Dkt. ## 35, 38–39. 10 Plaintiff subsequently filed a second Reply in support of the Motion, responding to 11 Defendant’s Opposition and asserting that the Court should grant the Motion in its entirety 12 because: (1) Defendant has not complied with its discovery obligations and has not 13 supported its arguments with evidentiary declarations; (2) Plaintiff seeks production of 14 only responsive and non-privileged material discoverable under the broad parameters of 15 Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and (3) nationwide searches are 16 appropriate as applicable to “similarly situated” employees subject to the same policies and 17 discipline as Plaintiff and overseen by the same regional and national decisionmakers. Dkt. 18 # 40 at 1. 19 III. LEGAL STANDARD 20 The discovery rules are to be accorded “broad and liberal treatment” because 21 “mutual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper 22 litigation.” Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1957). Information is discoverable so 23 long as it is “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. 24 R. Civ. P. 26, Comm. Notes on Rules – 2000 Amendment. Parties may obtain discovery 25 regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and 26 proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in 27 the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, 1 the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether 2 the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. 3 P. 26(b)(1). If requested discovery is not answered, the requesting party may move for an 4 order compelling such discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). The party that resists discovery 5 has the burden to show why the discovery request should be denied. Blankenship v. Hearst 6 Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975). 7 IV. DISCUSSION 8 A. Date Range 9 As set forth in the Motion, Plaintiff sought discovery from August 1, 2017 through 10 December 8, 2023, the dates of Plaintiff’s employment at KONE. Dkt. # 25 at 4. 11 Defendant responded that “Plaintiff’s . . . insistence on seven to ten years of documents” 12 was unreasonable, and that the time period should be limited to three years, corresponding 13 to the period of “unfavorable treatment” Plaintiff alleges she experienced at KONE. Dkt. 14 # 33 at 2, 4. 15 The Court began the November 14 discovery conference by informing the parties 16 of its preliminary determination that three years of discovery would be insufficient, while 17 ten years of discovery would be excessive. After questioning from the Court, the parties 18 ultimately agreed upon a narrower time period of five years. This agreed-upon range is 19 greater than the final three years of Ms. Lobdell’s employment at KONE, the time period 20 originally sought by Defendant, but less than the entire duration of Ms. Lobdell’s 21 employment originally sought by Plaintiff. The Court therefore finds that a date range of 22 December 7, 2018 through December 6, 2023 is consistent with the parties’ agreement. 23 B. Attorney Custodians 24 Plaintiff seeks to designate two KONE employees who are licensed attorneys as 25 custodians; one proposed custodian has the title of Operations Counsel, and the other has 26 the title of Compliance Director. Dkt. # 25 at 15. Defendant previously objected to 27 searching these two employees’ documents and communications as inordinately 1 burdensome, adding that “it does not seem legitimate for Plaintiff to target known attorneys 2 solely for the purpose of forcing Defendant to conduct a review and provide a privilege 3 log.” Dkt. # 25 at 6. 4 However, during the discovery conference, Defendant agreed to conduct searches 5 for both of the proposed custodians and to produce any responsive and non-privileged 6 documents and communications. To the extent that Defendant identifies any privileged 7 documents during the course of its review, its counsel will withhold or redact those 8 documents and provide a privilege log. 9 C. Nationwide Discovery 10 The last dispute between the parties concerns the geographic scope of discovery 11 applicable to certain of Plaintiff’s requests. Plaintiff seeks nationwide discovery with 12 respect to the following interrogatories and production requests: 13 (1) Interrogatory No. 13: Identify all Persons who have been investigated, 14 disciplined, and/or terminated for failure to comply with KONE’s Americans with Disabilities policy in KONE’s North America locations since June 2017. 15 Explain specifically and in detail the bases for such investigation, discipline and/or termination. 16 (2) Interrogatory No. 14: Identify all Persons in KONE’s North America locations 17 who have been investigated for failure to cooperate with KONE internal investigations since June 2017, explain specifically and in detail each Person’s 18 alleged failure to cooperate, and describe any discipline imposed for failing to 19 cooperate, including whether the Person’s employment was terminated. 20 (3) Request for Production No. 11: Please produce all Documents and Communications that refer or relate to investigation, censure, discipline and/or 21 termination of KONE employees for failure to comply with KONE’s Americans with Disabilities policy since June 2017. 22 (4) Request for Production No. 12: Please produce all Documents and 23 Communications that refer or relate to investigation, censure, discipline and/or 24 termination of KONE employees for failure to cooperate with KONE investigations since June 2017. 25 Dkt. # 25 at 10, Dkt. # 27-1 at 10–11, 13–14. 26 Defendant responds that Plaintiff is not entitled to nationwide discovery for material 27 1 responsive to these requests, asserting that that a search of this scope would be unduly 2 burdensome and is disproportionate to the needs of Plaintiff’s case. Dkt. # 33 at 7–9. 3 Defendant also indicated that it had searched for, and had not located, responsive material 4 in the State of Washington across a more limited time period of three years. Dkt. # 33 at 5 9–10; Dkt. # 27-6 at 12–14, 18–21. 6 After hearing argument from counsel, the Court inquired as to the parties’ 7 willingness to accept regional discovery tailored approximately to the “West” region (a 8 term appearing in the title of the regional human resources manager involved in Plaintiff’s 9 termination), or, alternatively, the “Pacific District” (a term appearing in the title of one of 10 the managers who approved the termination). See Dkt. # 25 at 15. Counsel for both parties 11 professed to have insufficient knowledge of KONE’s operations to enable the immediate 12 identification of the appropriate region or district with specificity. However, Plaintiff’s 13 counsel indicated that regional discovery would be generally acceptable to Plaintiff as long 14 as Defendant agrees to conduct searches for responsive materials across the following 15 custodians: Kris Barrios, Jordan Rothschiller, Joe Harmeyer, Alice Heinz, Mary Damitio, 16 and Tom Galindo. Defendant’s counsel concurred, but noted that a few of the 17 aforementioned custodians are located outside the “Pacific” or “West[ern]” district or 18 region or otherwise have nationwide responsibilities; these custodians include Alice Heinz, 19 Mary Damitio, and Tom Galindo. As such, counsel for the Defendant proposed that any 20 responsive material custodial to employee custodians with nationwide responsibilities be 21 limited to the relevant geographical region as identified by the parties. The Court accepted 22 this proposal. 23 Accordingly, the Court ruled that the parties limit discovery applicable to Plaintiff’s 24 Interrogatory No. 13, Interrogatory No. 14, Request for Production No. 11, and Request 25 for Production No. 12 to a mutually-agreeable geographical region, equivalent to either 26 KONE’s “Pacific District” or “West[ern]” district, as appropriate. Defendant shall conduct 27 searches across, and produce responsive material from, the following custodians: Kris 1 Barrios, Jordan Rothschiller, Joe Harmeyer, Alice Heinz, Mary Damitio, and Tom Galindo. 2 However, to the extent that any of the foregoing employees’ responsibilities extend beyond 3 the agreed-upon geographical region, Plaintiff is entitled only to the production of 4 responsive material relating to investigations, censures, disciplines and/or terminations of 5 KONE employees within the agreed-upon geographical region. 6 The Court concluded the discovery conference by noting that its rulings are based 7 upon the knowledge of Plaintiff’s counsel at the time of the conference. Based on the 8 foregoing rulings set forth in this Order, the Court construes Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel 9 Discovery Responses as moot. If, in the future, the parties identify any potential 10 justifications to advance or expand the scope of discovery, or any new disputes arise, the 11 parties are directed as follows. First, counsel should meet and confer and make a genuine 12 attempt to resolve their disputes. If resolution is not possible, the parties shall file with the 13 Court a single joint statement of no longer than five pages outlining any areas of 14 disagreement and setting forth the parties’ specific expectations or needs from the Court. 15 If necessary, the Court will then conduct another telephone conference to resolve any 16 disputes. 17 V. CONCLUSION 18 Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Motion to 19 Compel Discovery Responses. Dkt. # 25. 20 21 Dated this 20th day of November, 2025. 22 23 A 24 25 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 26 United States District Judge 27