Bair v. Snohomish County

Opinion

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 ) 9 CHERYL BAIR, ) CASE NO. 2:19-cv-00998-BJR ) 10 Plaintiff, ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S ) MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF 11 v. ) SUFFICIENCY OF ANSWERS TO ) REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 12 SNOHOMISH COUNTY, et al., ) ) 13 Defendants. ) ____________________________________) 14

15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Determination of Sufficiency of Answers to 17 Requests for Admission. Dkt. No. 48. Having reviewed the motion, the opposition thereto, the 18 record of the case, and the relevant legal authorities, the Court will deny the motion. The Court’s 19 20 reasoning follows. 21 II. BACKGROUND 22 This case involves Plaintiff’s allegations that she was physically assaulted while in custody 23 at the Snohomish County Jail in July of 2017. See generally Dkt. No. 28 (Second Amended 24 Complaint). She claims that upon arrival for booking at the County Jail, the jail staff slammed her 25 1 against a wall, took her to the ground, and assaulted her causing injury which they failed to 1 properly treat. Id. at ¶¶ 16–30. 2 3 On April 10, 2020, Plaintiff served Defendant Snohomish County with her first set of 4 requests for admission. Dkt. No. 48 at 2. The request included Request for Admission 1 (“Request 5 #1”), which reads: 6 Admit that physically injured inmates must be examined and treated by medical 7 staff while at the Snohomish County Jail.

8 Dkt. No. 49-1 at 3.

9 The County answered on May 7, 2020, including general objections and a specific 10 objection to Request #1 that it was “vague and ambiguous, as it is subject to multiple 11 interpretations.” Id. at 8. Still, the County provided the following response. 12 Without waiving objection, Defendant admits that a severely injured inmate must 13 be examined by medical staff while at the Snohomish County Jail. Defendant 14 conditions this response upon the severity of the injury and the risk of substantial harm posed by the injury. Additionally, any inmate who asks for medical treatment 15 or discloses an injury at booking will be seen. Inmates have the right to refuse medical treatment and medical personnel cannot treat conditions about which they 16 do not have knowledge. Treatment of an injury will thus depend on the nature and severity of the injury, whether the injury is observable, and what information the 17 inmate chooses to disclose. 18 Id. 19 III. DISCUSSION 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 governs requests for admissions and dictates that parties 21 may serve such requests to admit “the truth of any matters . . . relating to facts, the application of 22 23 law to fact, or opinions about either.” FED. R. CIV. P. 36(a)(1); see also Asea, Inc. v. S. Pac. 24 Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1244 n.2 (9th Cir. 1981). In response, the answering party must either 25 admit the request, deny it, “or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or 2 deny it.” Id. at 36(a)(4). If the answering party must in good faith qualify an admission or deny 1 only part of the request, “the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or deny the rest.” 2 3 Id. 4 Requests for admission are not intended obtain discovery, but, instead to “narrow the issues 5 for trial.” Choquette v. Warner, No. 15-cv-05838, 2017 WL 2671263, at *1 (W.D. Wash. June 6 21, 2017) (citing Safeco of America v. Rawstron, 181 F.R.D. 441, 443 (C.D. Cal. 1998)). The goal 7 of admissions is to “expedite trial by establishing certain material facts as true and thus narrowing 8 the range of issues for trial.” Id. (quoting Asea, 669 F.2d at 1245); see also Shapiro v. Am.’s Credit 9 Union, No. 12-cv-5237, 2012 WL 5410660, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 6, 2012); Affiliated FM Ins. 10 11 Co. v. LTK Consulting Servs., Inc., No. 06-cv-1750, 2012 WL 1533887, at *8 (W.D. Wash. May 12 1, 2012). 13 Plaintiff claims that the County’s response to Request #1 is insufficient as it improperly 14 limits its answer to severe injuries, “rather than detainees showcasing any visible physical 15 injuries,” as requested. Dkt. No. 48 at 3; see also id. at 5; Dkt. No. 52. Plaintiff requests that the 16 Court either deem the subject matter of Request #1 admitted or order the County to amend its 17 18 response. Dkt. No. 48 at 5. The County responds that it “admitted what portion of the request it 19 could and provided additional information above and beyond the scope of the request.” Dkt. No. 20 50 at 1. It claims that if Plaintiff sees the response as insufficient, her remedy is to pose a new and 21 more specific request for admission. Id.; see also id. at 6. 22 Properly read, the County’s response is an admission that some injuries will warrant 23 examination by medical personnel, and others will not, based on qualifications regarding the nature 24 and severity of the injury as well as the inmate’s denial of treatment or the jail’s knowledge of the 25 3 injury. This is neither a refusal to answer the request nor an inappropriate qualification under the 1 circumstances. As such, The Court finds that the County has properly answered Plaintiff’s request 2 3 as written and will deny her motion. If Plaintiff wishes further clarification as to the County’s 4 policies regarding medical treatment, she may propound additional requests for admission or 5 discovery, which the County has indicated it would answer. See Dkt. No. 50 at 3. 6 IV. CONCLUSION 7 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Determination 8 of Sufficiency of Answers to Requests for Admission. Dkt. No. 48. 9

10 11 DATED this 1st day of June, 2020. 12 _______________________________ 13 BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4