Roberts v. Snohomish County et al

Filing 88

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 76 Motion to Compel, signed by Hon. James P. Donohue. **2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Joe Roberts, Prisoner ID: 394089)(SWT)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 8 JOE J.W. ROBERTS, JR., Plaintiff, 9 v. 10 11 SNOHOMISH COUNTY, et al., 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL Defendants. 12 13 Case No. C16-1464-TSZ-JPD This is a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter comes before the Court at the present time on plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery. Defendants have filed a response opposing plaintiff’s motion. The Court, having reviewed plaintiff’s motion, defendants’ response thereto, and the balance of the record, hereby finds and ORDERS as follows: (1) Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery (Dkt. 76) is DENIED. Plaintiff, by way of the instant motion, seeks to compel defendants to release reports related to the May 8, 2015 useof-force incident at issue in this action which he claims were missing from the discovery thus far produced by defendants. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff maintains that under Snohomish County Jail policies and procedures, there should be additional reports regarding the incident from precinct 23 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL - 1 1 and division commanders, the Sheriff’s Office Personnel Development Division, the Bureau 2 Chief of the Snohomish County Jail, other corrections deputies, and the nurse who evaluated 3 plaintiff following the incident. (See Dkt. 76 at 4.) Plaintiff also seeks to compel the production 4 of all medical records dated May 8, 2015 through May 21, 2015, which he believes will show the 5 injuries he suffered in the use-of-force incident. (See id. at 9.) 6 Defendants, in their response to plaintiff’s motion to compel, assert that all reports related 7 to the May 8, 2015 use-of-force incident, as well as plaintiff’s medical file, have already been 8 produced, and that the additional reports and records requested by plaintiff in his motion to 9 compel simply do not exist. (See Dkt. 82.) The Court is satisfied, based on the evidence 10 submitted by defendants in support of their response to plaintiff’s motion to compel, that the 11 additional documents being sought by plaintiff in his motion to compel do not, in fact, exist. 12 (See Dkts. 83, 84.) It would therefore serve no purpose for the Court to compel the production of 13 such documents. 14 (2) The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to plaintiff, to counsel for 15 defendants, and to the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly. 16 DATED this 14th day of June, 2017. A 17 18 JAMES P. DONOHUE Chief United States Magistrate Judge 19 20 21 22 23 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL - 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?