Barton v. Delfgauw

[7] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [8] WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA [10] NATHEN W. BARTON, CASE NO. 3:21-cv-05610-DGE [11] Plaintiff, ORDER ON DISCOVERY 12 v. DISPUTE AND CALENDARING MOTIONS 13 JOE DELFGAUW et al., 14 Defendant. [16] The Court reviewed the Parties’ Joint Discovery Dispute. (Dkt. No. 489.) The Court [17] concludes that on balance, Defendant’s responses to Plaintiff’s interrogatories are sufficiently [18] responsive, and ordering additional responses would only be dilatory at this stage. However, [19] Defendant’s signature fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(3), which [20] requires that answers to interrogatories must be produced “under oath.” The response is not [21] signed under penalty of perjury and only attests that Defendant answered “to the best of my [22] knowledge.” (Dkt. No. 489-1 at 8.) See Deseret Mgmt. Corp. v. United States, 75 Fed. Cl. 571 , [23] 573 (2007) (holding that phrase “to the best of my knowledge” negated oath). Accordingly, [24] 1 Defendant shall promptly re-produce his interrogatory responses with an attestation under oath 2 that complies with Rule 33. 3 The renewed discovery in this matter is now closed. Any dispositive motions must be 4 filed by July 14, 2025. Any responses are due July 28, 2025. The Clerk shall calendar this 5 event. [6] 7 Dated this 24th day of June, 2025. [8] a [9] David G. Estudillo 10 United States District Judge