James v. Asian Family Market

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: January 16, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-00212
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6

7 HENRY JAMES, CASE NO. 2:23-cv-00212-RSL 8 Plaintiff, v. 9 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL 10 ASIAN FAMILY MARKET, et al.,

11 Defendants. 12

13 This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s “FRCP Rule 37 Motion for an 14 Order Compelling Disclosure/Discovery.” Dkt. # 67. Having reviewed the submissions of 15 the parties, the Court finds as follows: 16 A. Procedural Issues 17 Plaintiff failed to meet and confer with defendants before filing this motion to 18 compel. The meet and confer requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1) and LCR 37(a)(1) 19 are imposed for the benefit of both the Court and the parties. They are intended to ensure 20 that parties have an inexpensive and expeditious opportunity to resolve discovery disputes 21 and that only genuine disagreements are brought before the Court. In the circumstances 22 presented here, compliance with the rules would not only have involved face-to-face or 23 telephonic discussions regarding each discovery request at issue, but it would have given 24 plaintiff the opportunity to identify the perceived shortcomings and defendants the 25 opportunity to explain (a) that their objections did not prevent or limit their substantive 26 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 1 responses and (b) the policies, practices, and timeline related to the destruction of Taylor’s 2 body cam video. The precipitous filing of the motion to compel placed before the Court 3 arguments that cannot succeed based on the existing record, as discussed below. 4 B. Substantive Issues 5 In his motion, plaintiff argues that defendants Sun and Taylor refused to provide the 6 names of witnesses, that Sun provided evasive answers to Interrogatories 5, 14, 15, 16, 17, 7 18, and 19, that Taylor destroyed body cam video that would have supported plaintiff’s 8 claims, and that Sun either should have been wearing a body camera or should have 9 preserved the video from Taylor’s camera. Dkt. # 67 at ¶¶ 13-15. Plaintiff makes no effort 10 to support his bare assertions that defendants refused to provide information within their 11 possession, custody, or control or that they provided evasive responses. The discovery 12 responses submitted with the opposition briefs belie the claim. Dkt. # 70 at 8-14; Dkt. # 72 13 at 4-7. 14 With regards to the body cam video, plaintiff acknowledges that the evidence no 15 longer exists. The Court cannot compel the production of a video file that was apparently 16 overwritten by Taylor’s employer and which Sun never possessed. Whether the facts 17 surrounding the destruction of Taylor’s body cam video could support a spoliation 18 argument and allow the jury to draw adverse inferences against defendants will be 19 considered in the context of the pending summary judgment motions. See United States v. 20 Kitsap Physicians Serv., 314 F.3d 995, 1001-02 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that while a 21 meritorious spoliation argument may forestall summary judgment, if defendants offer 22 credible and unrebutted evidence explaining the destruction of the evidence, an adverse 23 inference would not be warranted). 24

25 // 26 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 1 For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. 2

3 Dated this 16th day of January, 2024.

4 5 Robert S. Lasnik 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO