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)

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