Dow v. County of Snohomish

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE ESTATE OF ADAM CHRISTOPHER CASE NO. C20-1320-JCC JENSEN, by the Personal Representative PAULA DOW, et al., ORDER 12 Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, et al., 15 Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motions to compel (Dkt. Nos. 66, 70). Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby DENIES the motions for the reasons explained herein.

This case involves the fatal shooting of Adam Jensen by the Snohomish County Sheriff’s Department on September 9, 2018. (See generally Dkt. No. 27-1.) During the discovery process, Defendants sought various health records for Mr. Jensen. (See Dkt. No. 67 at 27.) Plaintiffs produced records containing redactions. (See Dkt. Nos. 67 at 5, 71 at 2.) They claimed the redactions related to third-party health information. (Id.) Dissatisfied with the response and unable to come to an agreement on removal of the redactions, Defendants moved to compel the production of unredacted versions of the health records. (Dkt. Nos. 66, 70.)

1 As the Court has repeatedly indicated, discovery motions are strongly disfavored. See, e.g., Lillywhite v. AECOM, 2020 WL 4501596, slip op. at 2 (W.D. Wash. 2020); Williams v. Perdue, 2020 WL 1703787, slip op. at 1 (W.D. Wash. 2020). Nevertheless, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a party may move to compel the production of discoverable information. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

7 Based on the Court’s in camera review of unredacted copies of Mr. Jensen’s Banner Health Behavioral Health and Columbia Valley Community Health records, the Court concludes that the redacted portions of these records contain third-party health information not relevant to this case. Therefore, this redacted information is not discoverable.

11 For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motions to compel (Dkt. Nos. 66, 70) are DENIED. The Court declines to award attorney fees, as both parties’ actions in this matter were substantially justified.

14 DATED this 5th day of August 2021.

A John C. Coughenour 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE