Santiago v. Wilkinson

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: March 11, 2021
• Docket: 3:20-cv-05538
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 MARCO SANTIAGO, CASE NO. 3:20-CV-5538-RSL-DWC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER 12 v. 13 BARRY WILKINSON, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 The District Court has referred this action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to United 16 States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Presently before the Court are the following motions: 17 (1) Plaintiff’s1 Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 51) andPlaintiff’s Motion for Contempt/Compel (Dkt. 18 54). Also pending are the parties’ Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion 19 for Summary judgment (Dkt. 19)and(2) Defendants’ Response/Cross-Motion for Summary 20 Judgment (Dkt. 29)(hereinafter “Cross-Motions”). 21 22 23 24 1 Plaintiff is transgender and uses she/her pronouns. SeeDkt. 5, Dkt. 28 at fn. 1. 1 MOTION TO DISMISS 2 On January 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Dismiss seeking to voluntarily dismiss this 3 case. Dkt. 51. On January 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Reply asking the Court to withdraw the 4 Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. 56. Defendants do not object.SeeDkt. 58. Plaintiff’s request to 5 withdraw theMotiontoDismiss is granted, and theCourt will deem the Motion to Dismiss as

6 withdrawn. TheClerk of Court is directed to terminate theMotion to Dismiss (Dkt. 51) as a 7 pending motion. 8 MOTIONFOR CONTEMPT/COMPEL 9 OnSeptember 21, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Dkt. 19. On 10 October 16, 2020, Defendants filed a Response/Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment.2 Dkt. 29. 11 On January 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed the Motion for Contempt/Compel asking the Court to hold 12 Defendants in contempt ofCourt forintentionally lying about theimpact ofsexually explicit 13 material in Department ofCorrections (“DOC”) facilities. Dkt. 54. Plaintiffalso seekstocompel 14 defendants to produce documents. Dkt. 54.

15 With respect toPlaintiff’s argument Defendants should be held in contempt ofcourt for 16 intentionallylyingaboutthe impact of sexually explicit material in Department ofCorrections 17 facilities,a court may sanction a party for failing to obey a discovery order and may treat the 18 failure as contempt ofcourt. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(vii). Civil contempt “consists ofa 19 party's disobedience to a specific and definite court order by failure to take all reasonable steps 20 within the party's power to comply.” In re Dual–Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig., 21 10 F.3d 693, 695 (9th Cir. 1993). 22 23 2After an extension, the Cross-Motions (Dkt. 19, 29) were re-noted for February 12, 2021 in order to be 24 considered along with the Motion for Contempt/Compel (Dkt. 54). See Dkt. 57 (minute order). 1 Plaintiff contests the accuracy of five statements from the Declaration of Tracy 2 Schneider, which are provided in Defendants’ Response/Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. 3 Dkt. 54; See alsoDkt. 29 at 2-5; Dkt. 31. However, such arguments are related to purported 4 issues of fact and do not establish Defendants violated a Court order. See Gifford v. Heckler, 741 5 F.2d 263, 265 (9th Cir. 1984) (“A district court has the power to adjudge in civil contempt any

6 person who willfully disobeys a specific and definite order of the court.”). Therefore, Plaintiff’s 7 request to hold Defendants in contempt of court is denied. 8 With respect to Plaintiff’s request to compel discovery responses,Plaintiff argues 9 Defendants have not responded to discovery requests. Dkt. 54, 60. Pursuant to Federal Rule of 10 Civil Procedure 37(a)(1): 11 . . . On notice to other parties and all affected persons, a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. The motion must include a certification 12 that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without 13 court action. 14 Plaintiff acknowledges there was no meet and confer with Defendants prior to filing the 15 Motion for Contempt/Compel. Dkt. 54, 60(Plaintiff did not providea certification that he 16 conferred with Defendants’ counsel or attach any documentation showing he requested a meet 17 and confer with Defendants’ counsel.). In addition, Defendants’ counsel filed a Declaration 18 stating Plaintiff has not communicated with counsel to meet and confer regarding any discovery 19 materials. Dkt. 54, 58, 59 (Declaration of Counsel, Sarah Brisbin). 20 Furthermore, Defendants contend Plaintiff never served any discovery requests. Dkt. 58, 21 Dkt. 59 at 1. In the Reply, Plaintiff argues the law library was closed due to COVID-19, and 22 Plaintiff was not able to “keep abreast of what is required by Court rule” or meet and confer with 23 Defendants. Dkt. 60. As Plaintiff has not complied with Rule 37, Plaintiff’s request to compel 24 discovery responses (Dkt. 54) is denied without prejudice. 1 With respect to Plaintiff’s arguments in the Motion for Contempt/Compel attempting to 2 dispute issues of fact, Plaintiff presents additional argument in response to Defendants’ Cross- 3 Motion. See Dkt. 54. Thus, although Plaintiff has already responded to Defendants’ Cross- 4 Motion, see Dkt. 35, the Court finds it appropriate to allow Plaintiff additional time to file a 5 supplemental response to Defendants Cross-Motion.3 Plaintiff’s supplemental response is dueon

6 or before April 2, 2021. Defendants may file a supplemental reply on or before April 9, 2021. 7 Upon consideration of the Cross-Motions, the Court will only consider the Complaint, the 8 Cross-Motions, the parties’ original Responses and Replies, and the Plaintiff’s supplemental 9 response and Defendants’supplemental reply. The Court will not considerany pleadings or 10 briefs not directly related to the Cross-Motions. Because the Cross-Motions have been pending 11 for several months, no further extensions of time will be granted. 12 Datedthis 11thday ofMarch, 2021. 13 14 A 15 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 3As outlined in the Court’s Pretrial Scheduling Order, the deadline to complete discovery was February 24, 2021, motions to compel discovery were due by March 3, 2021, and dispositive motions are due March 17, 2021. 24 See Dkt. 15.Neither party has sought an extension, and these deadlines remain in full force and effect.