Becker v. Carney et al

Filing 86

ORDER by Magistrate Judge J Richard Creatura, DENYING Plaintiff's 63 Motion for Contempt, 66 Motion for Default, and 69 Motion for Personal Service; and GRANTING Plaintiff's 67 Motion to Compel, and 74 Motion for Copy of the Docket Sheet. (Attachments: # 1 docket sheet - updated) **13 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL** (Asher Becker, Prisoner ID: 325267) (GMR)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10

ASHER JAMES BECKER,
Plaintiff,

11
12

ORDER

v.

13

CASE NO. 16-cv-5315-RBL-JRC

CARNEY, et al,
Defendants.

14
15
16

Before the Court are several motions filed by plaintiff: (1) motion for contempt (Dkt. 63);

17

(2) motion for default (Dkt. 66); (3) motion to compel discovery (Dkt. 67); (4) motion for

18

personal service (Dkt. 69); and (5) motion for copy of the docket sheet (Dkt. 74). Plaintiff’s

19

motion to appoint counsel is not yet ripe for the Court’s review. Dkt. 81. For the reasons stated

20

below, the Court denies plaintiff’s motion for contempt, motion for default, and motion for

21

personal service. The Court grants plaintiff’s motion to compel and motion for copy of the

22

docket sheet.

23
24

ORDER - 1

1
2
3

1. Motion for Default Judgment (Dkt. 66)
Plaintiff moves for the Court to enter default judgment against defendant Williamson.

4

Dkt. 66. Under Rule 55(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, judgment by default may be

5

entered “[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has failed to

6

plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must

7

enter the party's default.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Rule 55(b) provides that a default judgment may

8

be sought after default has been entered against a defendant. See also N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Brown,

9

84 F.3d 137 (5th Cir.1996),

10

Default judgments are generally disfavored and “[c]ases should be decided upon their

11

merits whenever reasonably possible.” Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1472 (9th Cir.1986); see

12

also TCI, 244 F.3d at 693 (recognizing “the long-standing principle that default judgments are

13

disfavored”).

14

In response to plaintiff’s motion, defendant Williamson states that he was on medical

15

leave due to a serious illness until March 1, 2017. Dkt. 76. Defendant Williamson was served

16

with plaintiff’s complaint on January 31, 2017, but planned to take care of the lawsuit when he

17

returned to work on March 1, 2017. Id. Defendant Williamson has recently returned to work and

18

been able to resume to his regular routine. Id. Defendant Williamson filed an answer and his

19

attorney has entered an appearance on his behalf. Dkts. 71, 73.

20

First, the Court finds that plaintiff cannot show any prejudice in defendant Williamson’s

21

delay in filing an answer. This case is in the early stages of litigation. Plaintiff has been able to

22

conduct discovery against the other named defendants and the Court recently extended the

23

discovery deadline to July 5, 2017. Dkt. 62. Therefore, plaintiff has not been hindered in his

24

ORDER - 2

1

ability to pursue his claims. Second, defendant Williamson was undergoing treatment for a

2

serious medical condition, and this suggests that he did not act culpably in failing to respond to

3

plaintiff’s complaint. Lastly, defendant Williamson has filed an answer, denying the allegations

4

in plaintiff’s complaint. Thus, defendant Williamson should be able to argue the merits of the

5

case and any defenses.

6
7
8
9

Accordingly, the Court denies plaintiff’s motion for default judgment (Dkt. 66).
2. Motion for Contempt (Dkt. 63)
In addition to seeking default judgment against defendant Williamson, plaintiff also filed
a motion for contempt. Dkt. 63. Plaintiff asserts because defendant Williamson failed to file a

10

timely response to plaintiff’s complaint, defendant Williamson should also be held in contempt

11

of court. Id.

12

“A district court has the power to adjudge in civil contempt any person who willfully

13

disobeys a specific and definite order of the court.” Gifford v. Heckler, 741 F.2d 263, 265 (9th

14

Cir.1984). Civil contempt consists of a party’s disobedience to “a specific and definite court

15

order by failure to take all reasonable steps within the party's power to comply.” Reno Air

16

Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1130 (9th Cir. 2006). To succeed on a motion for

17

civil contempt, the moving party must “show by clear and convincing evidence that [the

18

nonmoving party] violated the [court order] beyond substantial compliance, and that the

19

violation was not based on a good faith and reasonable interpretation of the [order].” Wolfard

20

Glassblowing Co. v. Vanbragt, 118 F.3d 1320, 1322 (9th Cir. 1997).

21
22

As discussed above, defendant Williamson has filed an answer in this matter and counsel
has entered an appearance on his behalf. Dkts. 71, 73. Plaintiff shows no basis for an order of

23
24

ORDER - 3

1

contempt as there is no court order that is being willfully violated. Thus, the Court denies

2

plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. 63).

3
4
5

3. Motion to Compel Discovery (Dkt. 67)
Plaintiff seeks an order compelling defendants to provide him with a video from July 30,
2015 in the prison dining hall. Dkt. 67.

6

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the

7

claim or defense of any party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Information is relevant for purposes of

8

discovery if “it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id.

9

Relevant information encompasses “any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to

10

other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc.

11

v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). Because discovery is designed to define and clarify the

12

issues in the case, it is not limited to the precise issues raised in the pleadings. Id., at 350–51.

13

“The question of relevancy should be construed “liberally and with common sense” and

14

discovery should be allowed unless the information sought has no conceivable bearing on the

15

case.” Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 610 (N.D.Cal.1995), quoting Miller v. Panuci,

16

141 F.R.D. 292, 296 (C.D.Cal.1992).

17

Plaintiff contends that the video will show whether defendant Roberts’ actions were taken

18

in retaliation, which is at issue in this case. Dkt. 67. Plaintiff contends that the video will show

19

defendant Roberts’ “highly aggressive body language” and that defendant Roberts had no

20

intention of infracting plaintiff until plaintiff said he would file a grievance, evidenced by the

21

fact that defendant Roberts did not take plaintiff’s information until plaintiff approached him. Id.

22

at 3. According to defendants, the surveillance video is not necessary to establish any aspect of

23

plaintiff’s retaliation claim. Defendants argue that defendant Roberts does not dispute that he

24

ORDER - 4

1

wrote an infraction and obtained plaintiff’s information. Dkt. 79 (citing Dkt. 57). In addition,

2

defendants contend that plaintiff’s motion should be denied because the video contains restricted

3

security information. Id.

4

The Court finds that the plaintiff’s proposed use of the surveillance video – may be

5

relevant, as it encompasses “any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other

6

matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v.

7

Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978).

8
9

As to the issues of security, defendants argue that the Court should also deny plaintiff’s
motion to compel because the surveillance video would require defendants to disclose

10

information concerning institutional security and would endanger the safety of others. Dkt. 79,

11

Dkt. 80. According to the declaration of defendant Herzog, providing access to recordings of

12

prison surveillance videos would allow someone to accurately determine which areas are weak

13

or devoid in the prison’s ability to capture identities in the aftermath of an incident or crime and

14

allow for studying staff movements to identify weaknesses in security. Dkt. 80 at 3. In addition,

15

defendants assert that surveillance video can be used by sexual predators to prey on weaker

16

offenders and to commit assaults on other inmates or staff. Id. Video can also be used to breach

17

security and allow new methods to pass contraband into facilities. Id. at 3-4.

18

While the Court is cognizant of defendants’ interest relating to the safety and security of

19

inmates, plaintiff is entitled to inspect discoverable information related to his retaliation claim.

20

Defendants’ concerns may be accommodated in ways that are less restrictive to plaintiff.

21

Accordingly, the Court grants plaintiff’s motion to compel and defendants shall provide plaintiff

22

a reasonable opportunity to view the surveillance video under supervision. The parties and their

23

respective counsel are prohibited from disclosing, sharing, transmitting, or disseminating the

24

ORDER - 5

1

surveillance video or its content to third parties, except as may be necessary to prosecute or

2

defend this case. If any party seeks to file the surveillance video with the Court, the party is

3

required to file the video under seal pursuant to Local Rule 5.

4
5

4. Motion for Personal Service (Dkt. 69)
Plaintiff moves the Court to order personal service on defendant Sarah Smith. Dkt. 69.

6

On March 28, 2017, defendant Smith entered a waiver of service. Dkt. 72. Thus, plaintiff’s

7

motion (Dkt. 69) is denied as moot.

8

5. Motion for Docket Sheet (Dkt. 74)

9

Plaintiff requests a copy of the current docket sheet to ensure that he has an accurate record

10

of all filings and proceedings in this matter. Dkt. 74. Defendants do not oppose plaintiff’s

11

motion. Dkt. 85. Plaintiff’s motion is granted and the Clerk is directed to send plaintiff a copy of

12

the docket sheet.

13

Dated this 12th day of April, 2017.

A

14
15

J. Richard Creatura
United States Magistrate Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER - 6