Blair v. City of Mercer Island

Filing 33

MINUTE ORDER granting plaintiff's 27 Motion to Compel; denying plaintiff's 26 Motion for Sanctions. Authorized by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (SWT) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

JAMES M. BLAIR,

10
11
12
13

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. C17-0265-JCC
MINUTE ORDER

v.
CITY OF MERCER ISLAND,
Defendant.

14
15
16
17

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable John C.
Coughenour, United States District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Support of Motion for

18

Discovery Sanctions (Dkt. No. 26), Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (Dkt. No. 27), and

19

Defendant’s Response (Dkt. No. 9). Pro se Plaintiff James M. Blair alleges that his former

20

employer, Defendant City of Mercer Island, created a hostile work environment and wrongfully

21

terminated him based upon his race. (Dkt. No. 1.) Defendant contends that it terminated Plaintiff

22

for cause following Plaintiff’s threatening and intimidating behavior. (Dkt. No. 29 at 1–2.)

23

Plaintiff seeks production of Mercer Island City Hall security camera footage from June 5 and

24

September 3, 2015 in an effort to rebut this contention. (Dkt. No. 25 at 5) (requests for

25

production numbers 1 and 2).

26

Parties may seek discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to a

MINUTE ORDER C17-0265-JCC
PAGE - 1

1

party’s claim or defense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Under Rule 26, “relevant information need not

2

be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery

3

of admissible evidence.” Id.

4

Defendant asserts it has provided Plaintiff all video footage responsive to his request.

5

(Dkt. No. 29 at 4.) Specifically, Defendant has provided Plaintiff video from June 5, 2015 and

6

conducted a search of recordings on September 13, 2015, finding no video responsive to

7

Plaintiff’s request and, in fact, finding that no video existed prior to July 12, 2016. (Dkt. Nos. 29

8

at 4, 31-1 at 4.) But Plaintiff requested video from September 3, 2015. Not September 13, 2015.

9

Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Dkt. No. 27) is GRANTED in part. The Court DIRECTS

10

Plaintiff to review its video archives for evidence responsive to Plaintiff’s request for production

11

number 2, security camera footage for September 3, 2015 from the hours of 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., and

12

provide Plaintiff with responsive video, if any exists, within 14 days of this Order. If no

13

responsive video exists, Defendant should so advise Plaintiff. The court declines to compel

14

further production of video footage from June 5, 2015, as it appears that Defendant has already

15

complied with Plaintiffs request for production number 1. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (Dkt.

16

No. 26) is DENIED. The Court finds no basis to warrant such sanctions.

17

DATED this 14th day of November 2017.

18

William M. McCool
Clerk of Court

19

s/Tomas Hernandez
Deputy Clerk

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

MINUTE ORDER C17-0265-JCC
PAGE - 2