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)

Download PDF
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

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?