R W v. Columbia Basin College

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: February 4, 2025
• Docket: 4:18-cv-05089
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 Feb 04, 2025 4 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 R.W., individually and on behalf of his No. 4:18-CV-05089-MKD marital community, 8 ORDER MEMORIALIZING Plaintiff, RULINGS ON CROSS MOTIONS 9 FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, vs. DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS IN 10 LIMINE, DEFENDANTS’ EXHIBIT AND TRANSCRIPT OBJECTIONS; 11 COLUMBIA BASIN COLLEGE, a AND STATUS OF DEFENDANT public institution of higher education; REAGAN 12 RALPH REAGAN, in his official and individual capacities; LEE THORNTON, ECF Nos. 304, 306, 327, 330, 331 13 in his individual capacity; and REBEKAH WOODS, in her official 14 capacity,

15 Defendants.

16 On February 3, 2025, the Court held a final pretrial conference, in advance 17 of the bench trial in this matter. ECF No. 348. Bret Uhrich appeared on behalf of 18 Plaintiff, who was present in court. Carl Warring and Andrew Brown appeared on 19 behalf of Defendants, with Defendant Rebekah Woods present in court. The 20 following summarizes and supplements the Court’s oral rulings on the cross 1 motions for summary judgment, ECF Nos. 304, 306, Defendants’ Motions in 2 Limine, ECF No. 327, Defendants’ objections to Plaintiff’s exhibits and deposition

3 designations, ECF Nos. 330, 331, and in response to updated information from the 4 parties regarding the status of Ralph Reagan as an official-capacity defendant. 5 A. Motions for Summary Judgment, ECF Nos. 304, 306

6 A party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of identifying the 7 portions of the record and the evidence that demonstrate the absence of a genuine 8 dispute of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986) 9 (citation omitted). The Court finds that there are disputes of material fact that the

10 Court cannot resolve without drawing inferences, determining witness credibility, 11 and weighing the evidence, which are not appropriate at the summary judgment 12 stage. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).

13 Accordingly, Plaintiff and Defendants have not met their burden for summary 14 judgment on Plaintiff’s remaining Section 1983 claim for injunctive relief. 15 B. Defendants’ Motions in Limine, ECF No. 327 16 The Court grants Defendants’ request to admit all testimony and exhibits that

17 were admitted at the 2022 jury trial. See ECF No. 327 at 2-3. 18 The Court denies Defendants’ request to limit trial testimony and evidence 19 on topics already addressed at the 2022 jury trial, with leave to renew if specific

20 concerns arise. See id. 1 The Court grants Defendants’ request to enforce the order and presentation 2 of witnesses. See id. at 3.

3 The Court grants Defendants’ request to exclude exhibits and testimony 4 containing legal conclusions except where those legal conclusions are solely 5 offered to provide context for the actions taken during the interim trespass and

6 student conduct proceedings. See id. at 3-4. 7 The Court denies Defendants’ request to preclude Plaintiff from testifying 8 whether, in his opinion, he would have successfully completed Winter Quarter 9 2017 but for Defendants’ actions. See id. at 4.

10 Finally, the Court grants Defendants’ request to maintain continuing 11 objections for any issues identified in their Motions in Limine that the Court 12 denied or overruled. See id. at 5.

13 C. Defendants’ Objections to Exhibits and Deposition Designations, ECF Nos. 330, 331 14 Plaintiff’s Proposed Exhibit No. 12: The parties have agreed that the hearsay 15 statements in this exhibit shall not be considered for the truth of the matter 16 asserted. Defendants’ objection, ECF No. 330 at 2, is moot. 17 Plaintiff’s Proposed Exhibit No. 20: Plaintiff agreed to withdraw this exhibit. 18 Defendants’ objection, id., is moot. 19 Plaintiff’s Proposed Exhibit Nos. 49, 50B, and 51: Plaintiff agreed to 20 withdraw these exhibits, thereby mooting Defendants’ objections, id. at 2-3. 1 Defendants raised no objection to Plaintiff’s Proposed Exhibit No. 50A, which 2 contains a single-page excerpt (page 6) from Plaintiff’s Proposed Exhibit No. 50B

3 that was admitted in this form at the 2022 trial. See ECF No. 249-1 at 4. 4 Plaintiff’s Proposed Exhibit No. 67B: Defendants’ objection, ECF No. 330 5 at 3, is overruled for the purposes of the bench trial only.

6 Plaintiff’s Proposed Exhibit Nos. 85 and 86: Defendants’ objection, id. at 3, 7 is overruled. Plaintiff may seek to admit these exhibits upon a proper showing of 8 foundation and relevance. 9 Deposition Designations: At the pretrial conference, Plaintiff withdrew his

10 designations of deposition transcripts. Defendants’ objections to these 11 designations, ECF No. 331, are moot. 12 D. Status of Defendant Reagan

13 Defendants indicated in their Trial Brief that Defendant Reagan no longer 14 holds the office of Dean of Student Conduct at Columbia Basin College and 15 therefore lacks the authority to effectuate the injunctive relief Plaintiff is seeking. 16 ECF No. 340 at 2. At the pretrial conference, Plaintiff agreed to dismiss the

17 Section 1983 claim for injunctive relief against Defendant Reagan in his official 18 capacity, although Defendant Reagan otherwise remains a party in this case for 19 purposes of final judgment on Plaintiff’s other claims. See ECF No. 348.

20 Defendants did not object to this proposal. See id. 1 Therefore, the Section 1983 claim for injunctive relief against Defendant 2 Reagan in his official capacity is dismissed without prejudice. The Section 1983

3 claim for injunctive relief proceeds against Defendant Rebekah Woods only, and 4 Defendant Reagan remains a party to this case with regard to Plaintiff’s other 5 claims against him.

6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 7 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 306, and 8 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 304, are 9 DENIED.

10 2. Defendants’ Motions in Limine, ECF No. 327, are GRANTED in part 11 and DENIED in part as explained above. 12 3. Defendants’ Objections to Plaintiff’s Exhibits, ECF No. 330, and

13 Objections to Plaintiff’s Deposition Designations, ECF No. 331, are 14 deemed MOOT or OVERRULED as explained above. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to (1) file 16 this Order, (2) provide copies to counsel, and (3) enter judgment of dismissal

17 without prejudice of the Section 1983 claim for injunctive relief against 18 Defendant Ralph Reagan in his official capacity. 19

20 1 DATED February 4, 2025. 2 s/Mary K. Dimke MARY K. DIMKE 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4 5

6 7 8 9

10 11 12

13 14 15 16

17 18 19