United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
LYNN WINMILL, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
before the Court is a Motion to Compel filed by Defendant Boy
Scouts of America (“BSA”), Dkt. 165, and joined
by Defendant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints
(“LDS Church”), Dkt. 167. Also before the Court
are two unopposed Motions to Seal. Dkts. 160, 168. For the
reasons explained below, the Court will grant the Motion to
Compel and defer ruling on the Motions to Seal.
in this case assert a single claim for constructive fraud
against BSA and the LDS Church arising from sexual abuse that
occurred several decades ago. Defendants assert a statute of
limitations defense, pursuant to Idaho Code section 5-218(4),
which states that a cause of action for constructive fraud
does not accrue “until the discovery, by the aggrieved
party, of the facts constituting the fraud or mistake.”
The Idaho Supreme Court, on certification from this Court,
recently clarified that the statute begins to run when the
plaintiff “knew or reasonably should have known of the
facts constituting the fraud.” See Doe v. Boy
Scouts of Am., 356 P.3d 1049, 1052 (Idaho 2015)
(citing McCoy v. Lyons, 820 P.2d 360 (Idaho 1991)).
first set of written interrogatories, BSA inquired about each
Plaintiff's first contacts with counsel, purportedly to
explore the facts supporting its statute of limitations
defense. All responding plaintiffs answered that
interrogatory identically, objecting on grounds of
attorney-client privilege, work product, and relevance.
Id. The interrogatories and responses each read as
INTERROGATORY NO. 37: For each Plaintiff who is
asserting a claim against the BSA, identify the date You
first had contact with an agent, employee, or owner of
O'Donnell Clark & Crew, Dumas Law Group or Chasan
& Walton, whether You or counsel made the first contact,
the Person with whom you had contact, and the date You first
retained O'Donnell Clark & Crew, Dumas Law Group or
Chasan & Walton to represent You in this matter.
RESPONSE: Plaintiff objects to this Interrogatory as
blatantly seeking information protected by the
attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, and as
not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.
When Plaintiff first contacted and retained his attorneys in
this matter has no bearing on the allegations in this case.
Id. After an unsuccessful meet and confer, pursuant
to Local Rule 37.1, BSA filed the present Motion to Compel
responses to Interrogatory No. 37.
Motion to Compel
have withdrawn their original objections to Interrogatory No.
37 on grounds of attorney-client and work product privilege.
See Pl. Resp. at 2, Dkt. 169. Accordingly, the Court
considers only whether the information requested is relevant.
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), as amended effective
December 1, 2015, provides that “[p]arties may obtain
discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant
to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the
needs of the case.” If a party served with discovery
fails to adequately respond, the serving party may file a
motion to compel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
37(a). The Court has broad discretion in deciding ...