Le et al v. Urquart et al

Filing 143

MINUTE ORDER deferring to Oral Argument defendant King County Deputy Sheriff Cesar Molina's 87 Motion for Summary Judgment ; granting in part, striking in part, and deferring in part defendant King County's 78 Motion for Summary Judgmen t ; setting ORAL ARGUMENT on Deputy Molina's 87 Motion for Summary Judgment, and the deferred portions of defendant King County's 78 Motion for Summary Judgment: Motion Hearing set for 5/9/2019 at 10:00 AM ; denying plaintiff 9;s 91 Motion to Preclude King County from Calling as a Witness Dijana Coric of the Washington State Patrol Crime Laboratory ; granting in part as to James Anderson, Ph.D. and deferring in part as to James W. Borden and Caroline Crump, Ph.D . plaintiff's 95 Motion to Exclude Experts ; RENOTING deferred portions of plaintiffs' 95 Motion to Exclude Experts, and plaintiffs' 67 Motion to Exclude Borden on the Basis of Untimely Disclosure: Noting Date 4/26/2019. Authorized by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (SWT)

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

2
3

BAO XUYEN LE, individually and as
Personal Representative of the ESTATE
OF TOMMY LE, et al.

4
5

Plaintiffs,

6
v.

7

MINUTE ORDER

KING COUNTY, et al.,

8

Defendants.

9
10

C18-55 TSZ

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable
Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge:

11

(1)
Defendant King County Deputy Sheriff Cesar Molina’s motion for
summary judgment, docket no. 87, is DEFERRED to oral argument.
12
13

(2)
Defendant King County’s motion for summary judgment, docket no. 78, is
GRANTED in part, STRICKEN in part, and DEFERRED in part, as follows:

14

(a)
With regard to (i) the equal protection (racially-selective law
enforcement) claim set forth in Paragraphs 129 and 130 of the First Cause of
Action, and (ii) the negligence (respondeat superior) claim (Sixth Cause of
Action), the motion is GRANTED and such claims are DISMISSED with
prejudice. These claims lack merit, and plaintiffs appear to have abandoned
them. 1

15
16
17

(b)
With regard to the deprivation of liberty (loss of companionship)
claim set forth in Paragraph 131 of the First Cause of Action, King County’s
motion for summary judgment as to Tommy Le’s siblings, aunts, and
grandmother, who have not asserted such claim, see 2d Am. Compl. (docket
no. 27), is STRICKEN as moot;

18
19
20
21
1

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Cause of Action for reckless or negligent infliction of emotional distress and

22 Fifth Cause of Action for negligent selection, training, and supervision were previously
dismissed by stipulation of the parties. See Minute Order (docket no. 38); Stip. & Order (docket
23 no. 65).
MINUTE ORDER - 1

1
2
3
4

(c)
With respect to the remaining claims against King County, namely
(i) Monell liability with regard to any ratification of Deputy Molina’s use of
allegedly excessive force (Paragraphs 127 and 128 of the First Cause of Action),
(ii) Monell liability (based on ratification) as to any deprivation of liberty (loss of
companionship), which is asserted by Tommy Le’s parents (First Cause of
Action), (iii) wrongful death and survival action pursuant to RCW 4.20.020 and
.046 (Second Cause of Action), and (iv) outrage (Third Cause of Action), King
County’s motion is DEFERRED to oral argument.

5
(3)
Oral argument on Deputy Molina’s motion for summary judgment, docket
6 no. 87, and the deferred portions of King County’s motion, docket no. 78, is SET for
May 9, 2019, at 10:00 a.m.
7
(4)
Plaintiffs’ motion to preclude King County from calling as a witness
Dijana Coric of the Washington State Patrol Crime Laboratory, docket no. 91, is
8
DENIED. Coric will be permitted to testify at trial. Plaintiffs may take (or retake)
9 Coric’s deposition at a mutually convenient time within fourteen (14) days of the date of
this Minute Order. Plaintiffs may also supplement their existing expert disclosures in
10 response to Coric’s report dated March 7, 2019, within fourteen (14) days after taking
(or retaking) Coric’s deposition.
11
12
13
14
15

(5)
Plaintiffs’ motion to exclude experts, docket no. 95, is GRANTED in part
as to James Anderson, Ph.D. and DEFERRED in part as to James W. Borden and
Caroline Crump, Ph.D. Anderson’s proposed testimony is speculative, and the probative
value of such evidence is far outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to plaintiffs.
See Fed. R. Evid. 403. With regard to the deferred portions of their motion to exclude
experts (as to Borden and Crump), plaintiffs are DIRECTED to file a reply brief, not to
exceed eight (8) pages in length, by April 26, 2019. The deferred portions of plaintiffs’
motion to exclude experts, docket no. 95, and plaintiffs’ motion to exclude Borden on the
basis of untimely disclosure, docket no. 67, are RENOTED to April 26, 2019.

16
17

(6)

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

record.
Dated this 15th day of April, 2019.

18
William M. McCool
Clerk

19
20

s/Karen Dews
Deputy Clerk

21
22
23
MINUTE ORDER - 2