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
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?