 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nachiem v. State6/27/2005
Demelash, reversal of summary judgment is required here because the trial court restricted discovery in a manner that prejudiced her. The plaintiff in Demelash, an Ethiopian immigrant, was detained by security on suspicion of shoplifting in a Ross store and was treated badly even after it became clear that the suspicion was unfounded.
His complaint against Ross Stores included, among other things, claims of racial discrimination, Consumer Protection Act violations, false arrest and imprisonment, and assault and battery. Demelash, 105 Wn. App. at 515. His appeal from a judgment denying all of his claims included an assignment of error to the trial court's refusal to enforce his comprehensive and detailed discovery request seeking information about the company's security activities, investigations, and demand letters. In response, Ross produced only a computerized report of customer complaints, most of which related to personal injury claims. This court, reversing, characterized the computerized report as 'useless' in light of its failure to provide information about the conduct of Ross Stores in other shoplifting incidents. Demelash, 105 Wn. App. at 520.
Unlike in Demelash, Nachiem has failed, both in the briefing below and in her briefing to this court, to demonstrate that the Department was being intransigent in refusing to undertake the burden of answering her extremely broad and unfocused requests. She has not shown that the discovery the Department agreed to furnish without objection was inadequate. She has not shown the relevance of identifying all employees at Fircrest for the last five years, all employees who left employment there and why, all residents who died, every investigation into suspected resident abuse, or the rest of the requested information. She presents no concrete basis for even a suspicion that the voluminous records she has requested - most of which have statutory protection as confidential records - would contain information relevant to her claim that she was demoted for complaining about the quality of Paul Anderson's work performance. See Beltran v. Dept. of Social and Health Services, 98 Wn. App. 245, 255-59, 989 P.2d 604 (1999). She refused to narrow her requests after the Department expressed its legitimate concerns about confidentiality and the burdensome nature of the requests in a discovery conference. Under these circumstances the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the protective order.
Affirmed.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|