Blackburn et al v. State of Washington Department of Social and Health Services et al

Filing 167

ORDER denying 162 Plaintiffs' Motion for Relief from Judgment; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8

PATRICIA BLACKBURN, et al.

CASE NO. C11-5385 RBL

9
Plaintiffs,
10

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

v.
11
12

[DKT. # 162]
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND
HEALTH SERVICES, et al.

13
Defendants.
14
15

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ motion for relief from judgment and

16 motion for an indicative ruling [Dkt. #162]. The Plaintiffs are a group of nurses and psychiatric
17 security attendants at Western State Hospital. They sued the Defendants for allegedly adopting a
18 discriminatory race-based staffing directed. On September 27, 2013, the Court granted summary
19 judgment to the Defendants.
20

Plaintiffs appealed the Court’s summary judgment order, but they also simultaneously

21 filed a state-court action to challenge the same conduct on state-law grounds. During that
22 litigation, they deposed the Hospital’s CEO and a nursing administrator. Both refused to
23 disavow using a similar staffing directive in the future if necessary to keep staff safe. Plaintiffs
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
JUDGMENT - 1

1 now claim that those depositions are newly-discovered evidence that the Defendants have an
2 unwritten policy that permits race-based staffing assignments. They seek to vacate this Court’s
3 judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2), but because this matter is currently on appeal, this
4 Court does not have jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek an indicative ruling as to whether
5 this Court would grant their motion, if jurisdiction was proper.
6

Rule 60 allows a court to relieve a party from a judgment in exceptional circumstances.

7 A movant who seeks relief under Rule 60(b)(2) must show that the newly-discovered evidence
8 existed at the time of trial and is of such magnitude that it would have likely changed the
9 outcome of the case if it had been presented. Jones v. Aero/Chem Corp., 921 F.2d 875, 878 (9th
10 Cir. 1990). The movant must also show that the new evidence could not have been discovered
11 before trial through due diligence. Id.
12

Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden in every regard. The “new evidence” could

13 have been discovered before the Court’s summary judgment order and is cumulative and
14 inconsequential. Even if presented, the deposition testimony would not have changed the
15 outcome of the case. Plaintiffs’ motion for relief from judgment [Dkt. #162] is DENIED.
16

Dated this 26th day of July, 2014.

18

A

19

RONALD B. LEIGHTON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17

20
21
22
23
24

[DKT. # 162] - 2