Tucson et al v. City of Seattle et al

Filing 226

ORDER on Defendants' 223 Motion for Reconsideration. The Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the 223 Motion as detailed herein. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (KRA)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 11 DEREK TUCSON, ROBIN SNYDER, MONSIEREE DE CASTRO, and ERIK MOYA-DELGADO, Plaintiffs, 12 13 14 15 16 CASE NO. C23-17 MJP ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION v. CITY OF SEATTLE, ALEXANDER PATTON, DYLAN NELSON, RYAN KENNARD, and MICHELE LETIZIA, Defendants. 17 18 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration. (Dkt. 19 No. 223.) Having reviewed the Motion and all supporting materials, the Court GRANTS in part 20 and DENIES in part the Motion. 21 Ostensibly invoking Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and Local Civil Rule 7(h)(1), 22 Defendants move the Court to reconsider its Order on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Permanent 23 Injunction. (Mot. at 3.) Oddly, Defendants concede that they cannot meet the requirements of 24 either Rule 59(e) or Local Rule 7(h)(1), and expressly state that they are “not asking the Court to ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 1 1 reconsider or alter any of the substantive aspects or requirements of its” Order on the Permanent 2 Injunction. (Dkt. No. 3.) Instead, Defendants “ask[] the Court to modify its Order only for the 3 purpose of providing greater clarity and additional guidance so that the City can ensure 4 compliance and, possibly, appeal.” (Id.) There are several flaws with Defendants’ Motion, and 5 only one narrow basis on which they are entitled to relief. 6 7 First, as Defendants concede, they are not entitled to relief under either Rule 59(e) or Local Civil Rule 7(h)(1). That alone merits denial of the Motion. 8 Second, Defendants’ request in Section I of their Motion for “clarification” fails to 9 identify any grounds for relief. (See Mot. at 2, 4-6.) Defendants obliquely ask the Court to 10 confirm their “understanding” of the Court’s rulings so that the City can “adhere to the Court’s 11 substantive legal rulings.” (Id.) But Section I of the Motion does not identify any portion of the 12 Order on the Permanent Injunction that commanded Defendants to take or forebear any action, 13 such that clarification might be necessary to “ensure compliance.” (See Mot. at 3; id. at 4-6.) In 14 essence, Defendants want the Court to provide an advisory opinion and legal advice that might 15 confirm the City’s interpretation of the Court’s prior rulings. The Court cannot properly issue 16 such an advisory opinion or give a party legal advice. See, e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better 17 Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 101 (1998) (noting that federal courts lack authority to issue advisory 18 opinions). Even if the Court were inclined to clarify any prior ruling, Defendants fail to state 19 explicitly in Section I what aspects of the Court’s prior orders require clarification and the reason 20 why such clarification is needed. And to the extent Defendants challenge the Court’s Order on 21 the Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, their request for reconsideration is untimely. For 22 these multiple reasons the Court DENIES Defendants’ Section I request for reconsideration. 23 24 ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 2 1 Third, the Court cannot provide an advisory opinion on whether or not the City’s planned 2 deletion of certain records will or will not comply with the Injunction. (See Mot. at 6-7.) Without 3 any supporting declaration, the City states it “plans to delete all records in [the Seattle Police 4 Department’s record management system called] Mark 43 that relate to Plaintiffs’ arrests” but 5 that “the City does not plan to delete records outside of Mark 43 that [sic] information about the 6 officers’ activities but contain no identifying information about Plaintiffs (such as the radio 7 logs).” (Mot. at 6.) The Court cannot opine on whether this will or will not comply with the 8 Court’s Injunction, as there is no supporting declaration and no evidence about what precisely 9 Defendants plan to delete or save and whether it might fall within the Court’s Injunction. The 10 Court DENIES the requested clarification on this inadequate record. The Court urges Defendants 11 to read the Court’s Injunction carefully and confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel if they are unable to 12 determine how to comply. The Court will not extend the time for compliance, but its denial is 13 without prejudice to a renewed motion filed using the Rule 37(a)(1) joint format with evidentiary 14 support and after the Parties meet and confer. 15 Fourth, Defendants ask the Court “whether the Injunction permits SPD to produce 16 records in response” to Public Records Act requests “up until those records have been deleted 17 per the Injunction.” (Mot. at 7.) On this limited issue, the Court GRANTS the Motion and 18 CLARIFIES that Defendants may not provide records of these arrests in response to any pending 19 PRA requests. While the Injunction provided thirty days to complete deletion and to file a 20 certification, it did not suggest that Defendants should continue to provide third parties with 21 records of the January 1, 2021 arrests during that thirty-day period. Allowing the dissemination 22 of these records would violate the letter and spirit of the Injunction. For these reasons, the Court 23 24 ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 3 1 clarifies that Defendants must not include records of the January 1, 2021 arrests in response to 2 any pending PRA request. 3 The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel. 4 Dated September 25, 2024. 5 A 6 Marsha J. Pechman United States Senior District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - 4

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?