Selto v. Clark County

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: May 31, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-05384
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE 7 OLIVIA SELTO et al, NO. 22-cv-5384 Plaintiffs, 8 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL 9 COUNTY OF CLARK et al, Defendants. 10 11 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Testimony of 12 Defendant Robert Anderson, a former Clark County detective who, Plaintiffs claim, used 13 excessive force in the shooting death of Kevin Peterson, Jr. In deposition, Anderson refused to 14 testify to his conclusions as to “what went wrong” and “what went right” during the incident, 15 which conclusions he drew in an “after action” he characterized as his “own personal thought 16 process.” Pls.’ Mot. to Comp. at 3-4 (quoting Dep. of R. Anderson, Decl. of A. Lee, Ex. 1). 17 Plaintiffs seek an order compelling Anderson to testify as to what those conclusions were. 18 Defendants correctly observe that “the ‘reasonableness’ inquiry in an excessive force case 19 is an objective one: the question is whether the officers’ actions are ‘objectively reasonable’ in 20 light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or 21 motivation.” Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 397 (1989). Reasonableness, therefore, “must be 22 23 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL 24 25 2 hindsight.” Id. at 396. 3 In light of this settled law, Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that what Anderson now 4 thinks about the events underlying their claims is relevant to the objective circumstances known 5 to him at the time of the shooting. Much of the authority on which Plaintiffs rely regarding the 6 purported breadth of relevance in discovery predates the 2015 amendment to Federal Rule 7 26(b)(1), which now defines the scope of discovery as limited to that which is “relevant to any 8 party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” It is clear that the amendment 9 was designed to encourage courts to “take on a stewardship role, . . . and [] actively engage in 10 early case management to ‘identify the critical issues, [and] determine the appropriate breadth of 11 discovery.’” Roberts v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 312 F.R.D. 594, 604 (D. Nev. 2016) (quoting John

12 Roberts, 2015 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary (Dec. 31, 2015), available at 13 http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2015year-endreport.pdf). Having failed to 14 demonstrate that Anderson’s personal opinion about what went wrong and what went right is 15 relevant to what was objectively reasonable at the time, Plaintiffs are not entitled under Federal 16 Rule 26 to discovery of that material. The Motion to Compel is DENIED. 17 DATED this 31st day of May, 2023. 18 A 19 B arbara Jacobs Rothstein U.S. District Court Judge 20 b 21 22 23 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL 24