Black Lives Matter Seattle-King County v. City of Seattle

Opinion

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 BLACK LIVES MATTER SEATTLE-KING 9 COUNTY, ABIE EKENEZAR, SHARON 10 SAKAMOTO, MURACO KYASHNA- Case No. 2:20-cv-00887-RAJ TOCHA, ALEXANDER WOLDEAB, 11 NATHALIE GRAHAM, AND ORDER RE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING ON JULY 31, ALEXANDRA CHEN, 12 2020

Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 15 CITY OF SEATTLE, SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, 16 Defendant. 17 18 The Court previously entered a preliminary injunction in this case. Dkt. # 42. 19 Plaintiffs now request that this Court hold Defendant in contempt for violating that 20 preliminary injunction. Dkt. # 51. To that end, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Order to 21 Show Cause Why City of Seattle Should Not Be Held in Contempt for Violating the 22 Preliminary Injunction, id., accompanied by several declarations, Dkt. ## 52-75, 79. 23 Defendant responded to that motion, Dkt. # 78, and submitted several declarations of its 24 own, Dkt. ## 80-84. The motion is set to be heard tomorrow, July 31, 2020. 25 In its response, Defendant cites due process concerns and asks the Court for 26 additional time to “substantively respond” to Plaintiffs’ charges. Dkt. # 78 at 4-5, 12-13. 27 Without ruling on the underlying motion, the Court acknowledges that it must review 1 more than the parties’ briefs and affidavits to determine if Defendant is in contempt of 2 the Court’s order. A civil contempt proceeding is a trial, governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 43(a), rather than a hearing on a motion, governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(c). Hoffman v. 4 Beer Drivers & Salesmen’s Local Union No. 888, Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, 5 Warehousemen & Helpers of Am., 536 F.2d 1268, 1277 (9th Cir. 1976). As such, a civil 6 contempt proceeding may not ordinarily be tried on the basis of affidavits. Id. Of course, 7 when “the affidavits offered in support of a finding of contempt are uncontroverted,” a 8 court need not “hold a full-blown evidentiary hearing.” Peterson v. Highland Music, 9 Inc., 140 F.3d 1313, 1324 (9th Cir. 1998). Instead, the court may “narrow the issues by 10 requiring that affidavits on file be controverted by counter-affidavits and may thereafter 11 treat as true the facts set forth in uncontroverted affidavits.” Id. (quoting Hoffman, 536 12 F.2d at 1277). 13 Given that Defendant “controverts” much of Plaintiffs’ evidence and that 14 Defendant has raised due process concerns, the Court believes that an evidentiary hearing 15 is warranted. An in-person hearing, of course, is not feasible. The courthouse in which 16 this Court sits is currently closed, and the precise date of its reopening is uncertain. Thus, 17 tomorrow’s hearing will not be for oral argument; rather, the Court will discuss the best 18 way to proceed with an evidentiary hearing. The parties should be ready to discuss the 19 following list of non-exhaustive topics: 20 • The date of the hearing 21 • The length of the hearing; 22 • The format of the hearing; 23 • Preferred technology to conduct the hearing; 24 • Waiver of the hearing and, in lieu, a proceeding under the affidavits as 25 described in Peterson, 140 F.3d at 1324; 26 / / / 27 / / / 1 • Defendant’s plan regarding the 1394 Body Worn Videos described in Cesar 2 Hidalgo-Landeros’s declaration (Dkt. # 82).

3 DATED this 30th day of July, 2020. 4 A 5 6 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27