Disability Rights Washington v. Meneses

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 DISABILITY RIGHTS WASHINGTON, a CASE NO. 3:22-cv-05651-RJB 11 nonprofit membership organization for the federally mandated Protection and ORDER 12 Advocacy Systems, 13 Plaintiff, v. 14 JILMA MENESES, in her official capacity 15 as Acting Secretary of the Washington State Department of Social and Health 16 Services; and SUSAN BIRCH, in her official capacity as Director of the 17 Washington State Health Care Authority, 18 Defendants. 19

20 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Joint Motion for Summary Judgment 21 (Dkt. 136) and Plaintiff’s motion to continue the motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 142). The 22 Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motions and the 23 file herein. 24 1 The Plaintiff in this case seeks declaratory and injunctive relief regarding The Rainier 2 School, a state-run, residential facility for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. 3 Dkt. 83. It contends that it is a dangerous place to live and fails to provide for the health and 4 safety of its residents. Id. The Plaintiff brings claims for violations of Title II of the Americans 5 with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12102, et. seq., and the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”),

6 29 U.S.C. § 701, et. seq. Id. In addition to declaratory and injunctive relief, the Plaintiff seeks 7 attorneys’ fees and costs. Id. 8 On March 8, 2023, the Plaintiff served its First Interrogatories and Requests for 9 Production on Defendant Susan Birch, sued in her official capacity as Director of the 10 Washington State Health Care Authority. Dkt. 139. Dir. Birch responded, produced several 11 pages of documents, and raised objections to other portions of the discovery requests. Id. at 3. 12 She continues to produce documents on a rolling basis. Id. 13 The Plaintiff also served its First Interrogatories and Requests for Production on 14 Defendant Jilma Meneses, sued in her official capacity as Acting Secretary of the Washington

15 State Department of Social and Health Services. Dkt. 138. Acting Sec. Meneses responded, 16 produced several pages of documents, and raised objections to other portions of the discovery 17 requests. Id. at 3. Acting Sec. Meneses is producing documents on a rolling basis. See Dkt. 18 145. 19 On April 27, 2023, Dir. Birch filed a motion for summary judgment on the claims 20 brought against her. Dkt. 93. On May 23, 2023, the Plaintiff’s motion to continue Dir. Birch’s 21 motion for summary judgment until discovery is complete (Dkt. 98) was granted and Dir. Birch’s 22 motion for summary judgment was stricken, to be renoted after discovery was completed. Dkt. 23 103. 24 1 On November 16, 2023, the Defendants filed the pending motion for summary judgment, 2 asserting that the Plaintiff does not have associational standing and that Plaintiff’s claims cannot 3 support the remedies it seeks. Dkt. 136. 4 On December 1, 2023, the Plaintiff’s counsel served subpoenas for two depositions and 5 indicates that additional subpoenas for depositions will be served. Dkt. 143. Further, Plaintiff’s

6 counsel states that since the motion for summary judgment was filed, additional written 7 discovery has, and will be, propounded. Id. 8 In response to the motion for summary judgment, the Plaintiff opposes the motion and 9 moves for a continuance of the motion for summary judgment until after discovery is complete. 10 Dkt. 142. The Defendants, in their joint reply, oppose the motion to continue. Dkt. 151. Both 11 motions are now ripe. 12 Trial is set to begin on January 1, 2025, the discovery deadline is September 16, 2024, 13 and the dispositive motions deadline is October 15, 2024. Dkt. 108. 14 DISCUSSION

15 A. SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD 16 Summary judgment is proper only if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials 17 on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the 18 movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party is 19 entitled to judgment as a matter of law when the nonmoving party fails to make a sufficient 20 showing on an essential element of a claim in the case on which the nonmoving party has the 21 burden of proof. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1985). There is no genuine issue 22 of fact for trial where the record, taken as a whole, could not lead a rational trier of fact to find 23 for the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 24 1 (1986). Conversely, a genuine dispute over a material fact exists if there is sufficient evidence 2 supporting the claimed factual dispute, requiring a judge or jury to resolve the differing versions 3 of the truth. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 253 (1986); T.W. Elec. Serv. Inc. v. 4 Pacific Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). 5 The determination of the existence of a material fact is often a close question. The court

6 must consider the substantive evidentiary burden that the nonmoving party must meet at trial, 7 which is a preponderance of the evidence in most civil cases. Anderson at 254; T.W. Elect. at 8 630. The court must resolve any factual issues of controversy in favor of the nonmoving party 9 only when the facts specifically attested by that party contradict facts specifically attested by the 10 moving party. The nonmoving party may not merely state that it will discredit the moving 11 party’s evidence at trial, in the hopes that evidence can be developed at trial to support the 12 claim. T.W. Elect. 809 F.2d at 630. Conclusory, non-specific statements in affidavits are not 13 sufficient, and “missing facts” will not be “presumed.” Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed., 497 U.S. 14 871, 888–89 (1990).

15 B. MOTION TO CONTINUE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 16 Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d): 17 If a nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition [to a motion for summary 18 judgment], the court may: (1) defer considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or (3) issue any other 19 appropriate order.

20 Although Plaintiff has made a scant showing that it “cannot present facts essential to 21 justify its opposition,” Rule 56(d), it is sufficient to justify allowance of more time to complete 22 discovery on the relevant issues. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion under Rule 56(d) (Dkt. 142) 23 24 1 should be granted and the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 136) should be 2 stricken to be renoted, if appropriate, after discovery is complete. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 5 to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.

6 Dated this 21st day of December, 2023. 7 A 8

9 ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24