Lewis v. Pugh

Filing 78

ORDER ON CIVIL RULE 37 SUBMISSION granting parties' 75 Joint Motion Regarding Discovery. The Court ORDERS Defendant to produce the items described in this order. Signed by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (PM)

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

8
9
10

JUSTIN EDWARD LEWIS,
Plaintiff,

11

CASE NO. C17-5227 MJP
ORDER ON CIVIL RULE 37
SUBMISSION

v.

12

RYAN PUGH,

13

Defendant.

14
15
16

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon the Parties’ Expedited Joint Motion

17

Regarding Discovery. (Dkt. No. 75.) Having considered the Motion and all related papers, the

18

Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion and ORDERS Defendant to produce the items described

19

below.

20

The Parties have each submitted briefing describing their respective positions in

21

accordance with Local Civil Rule 37. (Dkt. No. 75.) Plaintiff is seeking unredacted Department

22

of Corrections Use of Force Policies, video surveillance related to Defendant’s use of force on

23

Plaintiff, answers to interrogatories and deposition questions propounded to Defendant, and

24

ORDER ON CIVIL RULE 37 SUBMISSION - 1

1

responses to questions propounded to DOC employees about the video surveillance. (Id. at

2

8-11.) Plaintiff asserts that these materials are essential to his civil rights claim, which requires

3

him to demonstrate to a jury that Defendant’s use of force was objectively unreasonable given

4

the facts and circumstances confronting Defendant. (Id. at 8.)

5

Defendant asserts privileges over the Department’s Use of Force Policies and related

6

documents based on certain exemptions to Washington’s Public Records Act, RCW 42.56, and

7

argues that producing these items “would jeopardize the security of the institution,” allowing

8

inmates who learn the contents to “push[] the line.” (Id. at 3-5.) Defendant also asserts that

9

there is no relevant video surveillance based on the redacted declaration of Steven E. DeMars,

10

the Chief Investigation Officer at Washington Corrections Center. (Dkt. No. 75 at 4; Dkt. No. 53

11

(“DeMars Decl.”)

12

The Court finds that because Plaintiff has offered to restrict disclosure of the requested

13

materials to Plaintiff’s attorneys (Id. at 11), Plaintiff is seeking these documents in discovery, not

14

pursuant to a public records request, and confidentiality can be made a condition of disclosure,

15

Defendant’s arguments about the possible risks arising from broad disclosure are unpersuasive.

16

Further, Defendant’s reliance on the heavily redacted DeMars Declaration fails to satisfy his

17

“burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting [his] objections,” Cable & Computer Tech.,

18

Inc. v. Lockheed Sanders, Inc., 175 F.R.D. 646, 650 (C.D. Cal. 1997), especially where Mr.

19

DeMars appears to concede that one of the cameras monitoring the yard has the capacity to

20

document detailed images. (DeMars Decl. ¶ 4.) If video footage of the incident has been

21

destroyed, or never existed because the cameras were not monitoring the yard, understanding

22

why is likely relevant to Plaintiff’s case or future discovery motions.

23
24

ORDER ON CIVIL RULE 37 SUBMISSION - 2

1

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendant to produce the items listed below under the

2

following conditions: (1) The items are to be reviewed by Plaintiff’s attorneys’ eyes only at a

3

time and location of Defendant’s choosing; (2) Plaintiff’s attorneys shall identify and alert

4

Defendant’s counsel to any documents that they intend to copy; (3) the documents will not be

5

distributed; (4) Plaintiff’s attorneys will agree to keep these items and anything learned therein

6

confidential; (5) the documents will be filed under seal when used in support of any arguments

7

before the Court; (6) at the conclusion of litigation, any copies of the items in the possession of

8

Plaintiff’s counsel will be returned to the Department of Corrections or destroyed; and (7) should

9

Plaintiff’s counsel determine that Plaintiff needs to review any of these materials, counsel may

10

show these items to Plaintiff only with leave of the Court.

11

1. Use of Force Policies and Related Materials 1
Identification no.

12

00700001-26

13
00800001-27

14

Title of Document
DOC restricted policy 410.200, Use of Force,
Revision date 6-23-14.
Washington Corrections Center Operational Memorandum, WCC 410.200,
Use of Force, revision date 6-24-16.

01400001-3

2016 Control Tactics Practical Testing quiz sheet.

01400004-7

DT Written T e s t key.

16

01400008-11

DT Written Test form.

17

01400012141
01400142146

Defense Tactics Manual 2016. Officers’ photos redacted.

15

18

Prisons Division In-service Control Tactics 2016 training synopsis.

19
2. Interrogatories, Video Surveillance, and Deposition Questions

20
21

Defendant is also ordered to provide answers to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories, Numbers 18

22

through 21, answer deposition questions on the Use of Force Policies, location of surveillance

23
24

1

Documents are to be produced unredacted unless otherwise noted.

ORDER ON CIVIL RULE 37 SUBMISSION - 3

1

cameras, and whether video surveillance was recording at the time of the incident or shown on

2

the monitor on campus, and to provide any video surveillance that is broadly responsive to

3

Plaintiff’s Request for Production. These items will all be viewed subject to the conditions listed

4

above. While the status of depositions—including whether third party subpoenas have been

5

issued—remains unclear from Plaintiff’s briefing, should Plaintiff decide to issue subpoenas to

6

Department employees or former employees, those third parties must answer deposition

7

questions in accordance with the discussion above.

8
9
10

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.
Dated August 23, 2019.

12

A

13

Marsha J. Pechman
United States District Judge

11

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER ON CIVIL RULE 37 SUBMISSION - 4