Becker v. Carney et al

Filing 93

ORDER denying 91 Defendants' Objection to Magistrate Judge's Order 86 ; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.**2 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Asher Becker, Prisoner ID: 325267)(DN)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8

ASHER JAMES BECKER,

CASE NO. C16-5315-RBL-JRC

9
Plaintiff,
10
11
12

ORDER DENYING OBJECTION

v.
BRENT CARNEY, et al.,

DKT. #91

Defendants.

13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Objection to Magistrate Judge

15

Creatura’s Order [Dkt. #86] granting Plaintiff Becker’s Motion to Compel Discovery [Dkt. #67].

16

Becker asked the Court for access to surveillance video showing his ten-to-fifteen-minute

17

interaction with Sergeant Roberts in the Stafford Creek Corrections Center dining hall,

18

contending the video would support his claim that Roberts cited him in retaliation. Defendants

19

repeat the arguments laid out in their Response [Dkt. #79] to Becker’s motion. They argue

20

Becker does not need the video to support his retaliation claim and sharing the video leaves the

21

prison vulnerable to a security breach that could endanger the safety of staff, inmates, and

22

visitors. Defendants ask the Court to reconsider Judge Creatura’s order because it “did not

23
24

ORDER DENYING OBJECTION - 1

1

accord substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal

2

justice system” under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). Dkt. #91 (Objection) at 1.

3

The order granted Becker’s motion because the video relates to his claim, but, out of

4

concern for inmates’ and others’ safety and security, it limited his viewing and sharing of the

5

information it presents: “[D]efendants shall provide [Becker] a reasonable opportunity to view

6

the surveillance video under supervision. The parties and their respective counsel are prohibited

7

from disclosing, sharing, transmitting, or disseminating the surveillance video or its content to

8

third parties, except as may be necessary to prosecute or defend this case.” Dkt. #86 (Order) at

9

5–6 (emphasis added).

10

First, it is not for the Defendants to determine what Becker “needs” to support his claims.

11

The video is relevant to his retaliation claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Second, by placing

12

these limitations on Becker, the order did more than give substantial weight to the safety

13

concerns Defendants raised when evaluating the parties’ arguments, it endorsed those concerns.

14

Becker’s supervised viewing of his fifteen-minute-or-less conversation with Roberts in

15

the dining hall does not present such a risk to security that his ability to pursue his claims should

16

be limited beyond the order’s instruction. Defendants’ Objection [Dkt. #91] is DENIED.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated this 31st day of May, 2017.

20

A

21

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

19

22

23
24

DKT. #91 - 2