Becker v. Carney et al
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
ASHER JAMES BECKER,
CASE NO. C16-5315-RBL-JRC
ORDER DENYING OBJECTION
BRENT CARNEY, et al.,
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants’ Objection to Magistrate Judge
Creatura’s Order [Dkt. #86] granting Plaintiff Becker’s Motion to Compel Discovery [Dkt. #67].
Becker asked the Court for access to surveillance video showing his ten-to-fifteen-minute
interaction with Sergeant Roberts in the Stafford Creek Corrections Center dining hall,
contending the video would support his claim that Roberts cited him in retaliation. Defendants
repeat the arguments laid out in their Response [Dkt. #79] to Becker’s motion. They argue
Becker does not need the video to support his retaliation claim and sharing the video leaves the
prison vulnerable to a security breach that could endanger the safety of staff, inmates, and
visitors. Defendants ask the Court to reconsider Judge Creatura’s order because it “did not
ORDER DENYING OBJECTION - 1
accord substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal
justice system” under 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(1)(A). Dkt. #91 (Objection) at 1.
The order granted Becker’s motion because the video relates to his claim, but, out of
concern for inmates’ and others’ safety and security, it limited his viewing and sharing of the
information it presents: “[D]efendants shall provide [Becker] a reasonable opportunity to view
the surveillance video under supervision. The parties and their respective counsel are prohibited
from disclosing, sharing, transmitting, or disseminating the surveillance video or its content to
third parties, except as may be necessary to prosecute or defend this case.” Dkt. #86 (Order) at
5–6 (emphasis added).
First, it is not for the Defendants to determine what Becker “needs” to support his claims.
The video is relevant to his retaliation claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Second, by placing
these limitations on Becker, the order did more than give substantial weight to the safety
concerns Defendants raised when evaluating the parties’ arguments, it endorsed those concerns.
Becker’s supervised viewing of his fifteen-minute-or-less conversation with Roberts in
the dining hall does not present such a risk to security that his ability to pursue his claims should
be limited beyond the order’s instruction. Defendants’ Objection [Dkt. #91] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 31st day of May, 2017.
Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge
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?