Graham v. City of Federal Way et al

Filing 62

MINUTE ORDER by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. Defendant SCORE's 38 motion for summary judgment is STRICKEN in part and DENIED without prejudice in part; Plaintiff's 35 motion to compel discovery is STRICKEN in part, DENIED in part, and GRANTED in part as stated in the order; SCORE shall provide answers to interrogatories and produce documents in response to requests for production, as specified in paragraphs (2)(d), (g)-(n), in the order, within 30 days of the date of this Minute Order. (AD)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7

MEGAN GRAHAM,
8
Plaintiff,
9

C15-387 TSZ
v.

10

MINUTE ORDER
CITY OF FEDERAL WAY,

11

Defendant.

12
The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable
Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge:
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

(1)
Plaintiff has pleaded only one cause of action against defendant South
Correctional Entity Multijurisdictional Misdemeanant Jail (“SCORE”), namely a state
law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress under the theory of vicarious
liability, also known as respondeat superior. See Complaint at ¶ 172 (docket no. 2). As a
result, the Court STRIKES in part as unnecessary SCORE’s motion for summary
judgment, docket no. 38, as to all claims except the claim for intentional infliction of
emotional distress. With regard to the claim of intentional infliction of emotional
distress, SCORE’s motion for summary judgment, docket no. 38, is DENIED without
prejudice because issues of material fact are present.
(2)
Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery, docket no. 35, is STRICKEN in
part as moot, DENIED in part, and GRANTED in part as follows:
(a)
As to Request for Production No. 12, plaintiff’s motion is
STRICKEN as MOOT. SCORE has already provided plaintiff with a copy of all
materials referenced by this request.

22
23
MINUTE ORDER - 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

(b)
As to Interrogatory No. 2, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED without
prejudice. The interrogatory and plaintiff’s motion were premature because they
predated the deadline for disclosure of expert witnesses.
(c)
As to Interrogatories Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, and 19 and Requests for
Production Nos. 2 and 3, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. Plaintiff has not alleged a
Monell claim against SCORE. See Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New
York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978). Therefore, information and materials related to the
policies and procedures of SCORE are not relevant to any claims or defenses in
this action.
(d)
As to Interrogatories Nos. 12 and 17 and Request for Production
No. 5, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED in part, as to all employees except the
defendants named in the complaint. It is further DENIED and SCORE is not
required to produce “evaluative summaries, disciplinary recommendations and
intra-departmental memoranda regarding discipline.” See Mueller v. Walker, 124
F.R.D. 654, 657 (D. Or. 1989) or relating to sexual misconduct. The motion is
GRANTED in part as to excessive use of force or failure to produce medical care
as to the named defendants for the past 5 years.
(e)
As to Interrogatory No. 24, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. The
burden of responding to this interrogatory greatly outweighs any possible
relevance. See Edwards v. Clay, 2006 WL 3437901 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 29,
2006) (finding a request for “any and all grievances received by the defendants or
their agents concerning defendants’ treatment of all prisoners that are in and under
their care” to be overly broad).
(f)
As to Request for Production No. 13, plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.
This request does not describe “with reasonable particularity” the information
sought by plaintiff. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(1)(A).
(g)
As to Interrogatories Nos. 10 and 15 and Requests for Production
Nos. 4, 8, and 11, plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.
(h)
As to Interrogatory No. 11, plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED in part
as follows. SCORE shall identify and describe any lawsuits brought against it, in
the last 5 years, premised on the use of excessive force or the deprivation of
medical attention by one or more of its employees. SCORE need not provide
information related to lawsuits premised on complaints of sexual misconduct.
(i)
As to Interrogatory No. 13, plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED in part
as follows. SCORE shall state whether any of its employees have resigned or
been terminated, in the last 5 years, for excessive use of force or failure to provide

22
23
MINUTE ORDER - 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

medical care. SCORE need not provide information pertaining to employees who
have resigned or been terminated for sexual misconduct.
(j)
As to Interrogatory No. 16, plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED in part
as follows. SCORE shall provide information regarding internal investigations,
concerning the defendant officers named in the Complaint, docket no. 2, involving
excessive force and/or withholding of medical care. See Mueller v. Walker, 124
F.R.D. 654, 658 (D. Or. 1989) (“Documents relating to administrative complaints
against defendant officers regarding the incident in this case or regarding past
incidents” are relevant discovery). SCORE need not provide information
regarding internal investigations involving other employees.
(k)
As to Interrogatory No. 18, plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED in part
as follows. SCORE shall identify and describe the education, training, and/or
experience required for an appointment as a correctional officer in the positions
currently held by the defendant officers named in the Complaint, docket no. 2.
SCORE need not provide information regarding the education, training, and/or
experience requirements of its other employees.
(l)
As to Request for Production No. 1, plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED
in part as follows. SCORE shall produce personnel files for each of the defendant
officers named in the Complaint, docket no. 2. SCORE need not provide
personally identifying information (i.e., addresses, telephone numbers, social
security numbers), and may redact such information from any documents it
produces. SCORE need not provide personnel files for its other employees.
(m) As to Request for Production No. 6, plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED
in part as follows. SCORE shall produce a record of any and all complaints, made
in the last 5 years, against the defendant officers named in the Complaint, docket
no. 2. SCORE need not produce records of complaints which concern only its
other employees.
(n)
As to Request for Production No. 7, plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED
in part as follows. SCORE shall produce all internal investigations, occurring
within the last 5 years, concerning claims of excessive force or deprivation of
medical care involving the defendant officers named in the Complaint, docket no.
2. SCORE need not produce internal investigations pertaining to other bases for
investigation or concerning its other employees.
(o)
DENIED.

21
22
23
MINUTE ORDER - 3

Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees, costs, and sanctions is

1

(3)
SCORE shall provide answers to interrogatories and produce documents in
response to requests for production, as specified in ¶¶ (2)(d), (g)–(n), above, within 30
2 days of the date of this Minute Order.
3
4

(4)
record.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of

Dated this 31st day of March, 2016.

5

William M. McCool
Clerk

6

s/Karen Dews
Deputy Clerk

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MINUTE ORDER - 4