Seattle, WA – May 2, 2025
In a complex lawsuit now involving 17 defendants across four represented defense groups, plaintiff Elizabeth Campbell is drawing a firm procedural line — asserting her right to fair and manageable discovery despite coordinated tactics that threaten to derail the process.
On April 16, Campbell served targeted interrogatories and requests for production on each defendant group in Campbell v. Matthiesen et al (King Co. Sup. Ct. No. 23-2-25128-8). The discovery was not generic or duplicative: each defendant or group received requests tied to their specific role and relevance to the causes of action alleged in Campbell’s Second Amended Complaint.
Within days, defense counsel — acting collectively — demanded a single joint “meet and confer” session. The requested call would have placed Campbell, as a pro se plaintiff, across from a dozen attorneys representing defendants with divergent interests and responsibilities.
“That is not what CR 26(i) envisions,” Campbell said in response. “I am willing to confer in good faith, but not in a way that undermines clarity or procedural fairness.”
Instead, Campbell proposed a structured, written approach. She created individual Discovery Request Summaries for each defense group, mapping each interrogatory and document request to specific allegations and causes of action in the complaint. This framework, she argued, would promote efficiency, avoid miscommunication, and provide a clear basis for defense objections — if any — to be raised in writing.
“I cannot be expected to address vague or boilerplate objections across 17 defendants in a conference call,” she noted. “The defense must explain their concerns clearly and with specificity — which the rules require anyway.”
Swedish Club Lawyers reject Strategic Proposal
Campbell’s proposal included a reasonable schedule for written responses, allowing for follow-up phone calls or Zoom meetings with each defense group if needed. But on April 28, defense counsel again insisted on a single, all-party call to discuss both discovery and the content of Campbell’s amended complaint — blurring the lines between procedural and substantive challenges.
To date, Campbell has received no substantive, written objections from any defense group. The deadline for responses to her interrogatories and RFPs remains May 19, 2025.
Documents Available for Review
To support transparency and allow others to follow the procedural progression, the following documents are available for public access:
📂 Email Communications Record (April–May 2025): Here
📄 Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Requests for Production: Here
📘 Discovery Request Summaries: Here
A Larger Pattern?
Campbell contends this is not merely a procedural impasse, but a reflection of broader imbalance in civil litigation: “When represented parties coordinate to overwhelm a single plaintiff, it can look like an attempt to frustrate access to the courts.”
She remains committed to pressing forward, using the tools Washington’s civil rules provide — including formal motions, declarations, and documentation — to ensure that proportional, good-faith discovery prevails.