Haber et al v. City of Portland et al

Filing 19

ORDER concerning discovery disputes. Signed on 4/24/18 by Magistrate Judge Paul Papak. (gm)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
PORTLAND DIVISION
JOSEF HABER, et al.,
No. 3:17-cv-1827-PK
Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER

CITY OF PORTLAND, et al.,
Defendants.
PAPAK, Magistrate Judge:

Plaintiffs Josef Haber, Patrick Garrison, Jennifer Nickolaus, Chris Whaley, and Jade
Sturms bring this civil rights action on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of about 200
other individuals, claiming that their rights were violated on June 4, 2017, by Portland police
officers during a demonstration in downtown Portland. Plaintiffs bring claims for declaratory
and monetary relief against Mayor Ted Wheeler and individual police officers, and against the
City of Portland.
The parties disagree on the proper scope and procedures for conducting discove1y. These
are my rnlings on the parties' disputes. As discove1y proceeds, these procedures may be

Page -1- ORDER

modified.

Scope of Discovery
(1) Defendants' Proposal to Limit Depositions to Decision-Makers
Plaintiffs object to Defendants' proposal that "Plaintiffs limit depositions to relevant
decision-makers from the City of Portland who supervised and directed the events of June 4,
2017." Plaintiffs argue that while discoveiy as to "decision-makers" is relevant, Plaintiffs should
be allowed to depose other officers or city employees whose knowledge of events may differ or
supplement relevant infonnation. Plaintiffs may depose persons who are not designated as
decision-makers by Defendants.
(2) Discovery Topics

Plaintiffs accept Defendants' proposed topics 2B.a through .gas appropriate areas of
inquity.

(a) Plaintiffs' Participation in Past Protests
Plaintiffs disagree with Defendants' item 2.B.h, which would allow Defendants to seek
information "on each Plaintiffs participation in protests, marches or demonstrations within the
City of P01iland from June 4, 2007 until present." Defendants contend that such info1mation is
relevant to Plaintiffs' claims for damages. I agree with Plaintiffs that past or subsequent
paiiicipation in protests is not relevant to whether Defendants violated Plaintiffs' rights on June
4, 2017.

(b) Plaintiffs' Previous Arrests or Detentions
Plaintiffs disagree with Defendants' item 2.B.i, which would ask whether any Plaintiff
was ever previously detained or arrested. Defendants argue that a Plaintiffs aiTest histo1y may

Page -2- ORDER

indicate that a particular Plaintiff has knowledge of police practices during demonstrations. For
now, I conclude that Defendants have not shown that evidence of a Plaintiffs past arrests or
detentions is likely to lead to relevant evidence on whether Defendants violated that Plaintiffs
civil rights on June 4, 2017.

(c) General Background Information on Each Plaintiff
Plaintiffs disagree with item 2.B.j, which vaguely asks for "[g]eneral background
information related to each Plaintiff." I conclude that Defendants must devise more specific
requests.

(cl) City of Portland's Use of Force Policy
Plaintiffs disagree with Defendants on item 2B.k, in which Defendants assert that
Plaintiffs' "rely solely on the reasonableness of the detention ancl/or arrest that occurred on SW
Fourth Avenue between Southwest Monison and Southwest Alder Streets," so Defendants "do
not believe cliscove1y is necessary on the Portland Police Bureau's use of force policy, or the use
of force by the City's police officers on June 4, 2017." The City's use of force policy, and the
actual use of force during events at issue, are relevant to Plaintiffs' claims, and are proper topics
of discovery.
( e) Plaintiffs' Proposed Limitations on Depositions

The parties disagree on the scope of discove1y as to depositions. Plaintiffs propose to
modify the number and length of depositions as set by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30 "to a
maximum number of20 depositions per side, each lasting no longer than 3.5 hours. Under
Plaintiffs' proposal, a party could use two deposition slots for a single witness if the deposition
lasts longer than 3.5 hours." Defendants oppose Plaintiffs' proposed limits on depositions and

Page -3- ORDER

"would prefer the Rule 30 limitations to apply to this case." Because of the number of potential
witnesses, I agree that Plaintiffs' proposed limitations make sense, subject to possible revision as
the litigation proceeds.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

;f/1:;1,
Dated th!S aay of Apri 2018.

Page -4- ORDER