Navarrete v. City of Kent

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 CRISTIAN NAVARRETE, CASE NO. 2:22-cv-01431 8 Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 9 TO COMPEL v. 10 CITY OF KENT, a municipal 11 corporation; JAMES SHERWOOD, an individual, 12 Defendants. 13

14 1. INTRODUCTION 15 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Cristian Navarrete’s motion 16 to compel Defendants City of Kent and James Sherwood to fully respond to six 17 interrogatories and 19 requests for production. Dkt. No. 29. The Court held oral 18 argument on December 5, 2023, and for the reasons stated on the record, and as 19 further explained below, the Court DEFERS ruling on the motion until after the 20 parties have sufficiently met and conferred about the subjects in dispute. 21 22 23 1 2. BACKGROUND 2 This is a Section 1983 civil rights case. Navarrete alleges he was wrongly

3 arrested and prosecuted for a shooting that occurred near the Kent Transit Station 4 on July 14, 2020. Dkt. No. 27 at 3. He alleges false arrest, malicious prosecution, 5 and wrongful imprisonment for 141 days in violation of his civil rights. Dkt. No. 27 6 at 2. 7 On December 19, 2022, Navarrete served his first round of discovery 8 requests. Dkt. Nos. 30 at ¶ 3; 30-1 at 2-22 . On February 1, 2023, and March 27,

9 2023, the City and Sherwood provided their first and supplemental responses, 10 respectively. Dkt. Nos. 30 at ¶ 4; 30-1 at 24-55, 57. The parties exchanged deficiency 11 letters about their discovery responses and participated in a telephone conference 12 on May 12, 2023. Dkt. Nos. 30 at ¶ 7; 30-1 at 64; 32-2. On June 23, 2023, 13 Defendants provided supplemental responses. Dkt. No. 30-1 at 67-77. Finding these 14 supplemental responses insufficient, Navarrete filed this motion on July 20, 2023. 15 Dkt. No. 29. After the motion was filed, Defendants produced more documents in

16 response to Navarrete’s discovery requests. Dkt. No. 32 at ¶ 12. 17 Navarrete seeks documents that generally fall into four categories: (1) 18 communications and documents exchanged between the City, Sherwood, and 19 prosecutors in the criminal case arising out of the shooting on July 14, 2020; (2) 20 personnel records of employees who assisted in the investigation and prosecution of 21 the shooting for which Navarrete was charged; (3) complaints against Defendants

22 since 2010 relating to claims of malicious prosecution or false arrest; and (4) 23 1 unredacted versions of documents produced in redacted form by Defendants. See 2 Dkt. No. 29 at 5-6.

3 3. DISCUSSION 4 The requirement to meet and confer in good faith is not simply a “formalistic 5 prerequisite” for judicial resolution. Selim v. Fivos, Inc., C22-1227-JCC, 2023 WL 6 3172467, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 1, 2023) (citing Cardoza v. Bloomin’ Brands, Inc., 7 141 F. Supp. 3d 1137, 1145 (D. Nev. 2015)). “A good faith effort to resolve discovery 8 disputes requires an exchange of information until no additional progress is

9 possible.” Beasley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., C13-1106-RSL, 2014 WL 10 1268709, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 25, 2014). Indeed, even when a certification is 11 included, “[c]ourts may look beyond the certification to determine whether a 12 sufficient meet-and-confer took place.” Selim, 2023 WL 3172467, at *2 (citing 13 Cardoza, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1145)). If the Court finds the meet and confer insufficient, 14 it may defer its ruling. See, e.g., McLain v. Daniel N. Gordon, PC, No. C09- 15 5362BHS, 2010 WL 11685123, at *1 (W.D. Wash. June 29, 2010).

16 Before presenting this motion to the Court, the parties met and conferred 17 once, and not at all, following Defendants’ supplemental production following the 18 lone discovery conference. To be sure, it is possible to suss out the existence of an 19 impasse after a letter exchange and a phone call, but it is apparent from the parties 20 briefing, the discovery that has followed since the motion was filed, and the parties 21 representations during the December 5 hearing, that there is more discussion and

22 give-and-take to be had between the parties that could lead to agreement without 23 court intervention. Dkt. No. 30 at ¶ 7. Even if the parties can’t reach a compromise, 1 satisfying the meet and confer requirement will narrow and crystallize what is in 2 dispute and ultimately presented to the Court for resolution.

3 Accordingly, the Court orders the parties to meet and confer consistent with 4 their obligations under the Civil and Local rules. The parties should heed the 5 following guidance from the Court. 6 The Court finds no temporal limit necessary with respect to personnel files. 7 For citizen complaints about malicious prosecution or false arrest, the Court finds 8 the relevant period of discovery limited to six years before Navarrete’s arrest.

9 Generally, given that a protection order is in place, the Court finds redactions 10 inappropriate unless they are based on privilege. If the City and Sherwood maintain 11 their redactions, they must provide Navarrete with a privilege log identifying the 12 (1) the documents redacted, (2) the claimed privilege or basis, and (3) the document 13 author(s) and recipient(s). 14 4. CONCLUSION 15 The Court DEFERS its ruling on Navarrete’s motion to compel. Dkt. No. 29.

16 The parties must meet and confer and file a joint status report by January 16, 2024. 17 To the extent, issues raised in Navarrete’s motion are still in dispute, the parties 18 may submit their status report in the form prescribed by the District’s Expedited 19 Joint Motion Procedure. See LCR 37(a)(2). Accordingly, the Court directs the clerk 20 to re-note Navarrete’s motion to compel to January 16, 2024. 21

22 Dated this 7th day of December, 2023. 23 1 A 2 Jamal N. Whitehead United States District Judge 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23