Stean v. Bean

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ANDREW MARVIN STEAN, JR, CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01209-JNW Plaintiff, ORDER v. BELLINGHAM POLICE 11 DEPARTMENT; KEVIN BEAN; DANTE ALEXANDER; ANDREW 12 WASSEL, 13 Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Andrew Marvin Stean, Jr.’s, Motion for Court-Appointed Expert to Review Body-Worn Camera Footage, Dkt. No. 31, and Motion to Extend Discovery Deadline, Dkt. No. 32. For the reasons explained below, both motions are DENIED.

Stean asks the Court to appoint an expert to review the police body-camera footage that Defendants produced in discovery, and to assess the footage for possible tampering. Dkt. No. 31; see also Dkt. No. 22 (flash drive with video footage). Under Federal Rule of Evidence 706, the Court has discretionary authority to appoint an expert to help evaluate evidence. See Walker v. Am. Home Shield Long Term Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir. 1999). The Court finds no reason to exercise that authority here. In the present procedural posture of this litigation, the question of the authenticity of the police body-camera footage is not properly before the Court. Discovery is still underway, and Stean points to no live motion or other dispute requiring the Court to authenticate or otherwise analyze the footage.

6 Expert review at this stage would not advance the litigation. As such, this request is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Dkt. No. 31.

8 Stean also moves for an extension of time to respond to Defendants’ discovery requests. Dkt. No. 32. As the Court already explained when Stean submitted a similar motion in February, “Parties should only seek court involvement in disputes over discovery deadlines after they have attempted—in good faith—to agree on a discovery timeline and that attempt has failed.” See Dkt. No. 30 at 3. Stean includes no indication that he tried to meet and confer with Defendants in good faith before filing this motion. The motion is therefore DENIED. Dkt. No. 32. The Court DIRECTS Stean not to file additional discovery-related motions without certifying that he has attempted to resolve the issues addressed inside through a good-faith meet-and-confer with opposing counsel.

18 It is so ORDERED.

19 Dated this 21st day of April, 2025.

20 a Jamal N. Whitehead United States District Judge