Blair v. City of Mercer Island
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
JAMES M. BLAIR,
CASE NO. C17-0265-JCC
CITY OF MERCER ISLAND,
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
Discovery Sanctions (Dkt. No. 26), Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery (Dkt. No. 27), and
Defendant’s Response (Dkt. No. 9). Pro se Plaintiff James M. Blair alleges that his former
employer, Defendant City of Mercer Island, created a hostile work environment and wrongfully
terminated him based upon his race. (Dkt. No. 1.) Defendant contends that it terminated Plaintiff
for cause following Plaintiff’s threatening and intimidating behavior. (Dkt. No. 29 at 1–2.)
Plaintiff seeks production of Mercer Island City Hall security camera footage from June 5 and
September 3, 2015 in an effort to rebut this contention. (Dkt. No. 25 at 5) (requests for
production numbers 1 and 2).
Parties may seek discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to a
MINUTE ORDER C17-0265-JCC
PAGE - 1
party’s claim or defense. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Under Rule 26, “relevant information need not
be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence.” Id.
Defendant asserts it has provided Plaintiff all video footage responsive to his request.
(Dkt. No. 29 at 4.) Specifically, Defendant has provided Plaintiff video from June 5, 2015 and
conducted a search of recordings on September 13, 2015, finding no video responsive to
Plaintiff’s request and, in fact, finding that no video existed prior to July 12, 2016. (Dkt. Nos. 29
at 4, 31-1 at 4.) But Plaintiff requested video from September 3, 2015. Not September 13, 2015.
Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Dkt. No. 27) is GRANTED in part. The Court DIRECTS
Plaintiff to review its video archives for evidence responsive to Plaintiff’s request for production
number 2, security camera footage for September 3, 2015 from the hours of 7 a.m. to 3 p.m., and
provide Plaintiff with responsive video, if any exists, within 14 days of this Order. If no
responsive video exists, Defendant should so advise Plaintiff. The court declines to compel
further production of video footage from June 5, 2015, as it appears that Defendant has already
complied with Plaintiffs request for production number 1. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (Dkt.
No. 26) is DENIED. The Court finds no basis to warrant such sanctions.
DATED this 14th day of November 2017.
William M. McCool
Clerk of Court
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?