Merz v. City of Kalama

[5] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA [7] MATTHEW MERZ , CASE NO. C24-5588 BHS [8] Plaintiff, ORDER 9 v. 10 CITY OF KALAMA, et al., 11 Defendant. [12] 13 THIS MATTER is before the Court on defendants’1 motion for a protective order, 14 Dkt. 36. Defendants ask the Court to stay written discovery until it resolves their 15 forthcoming Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings. 16 They argue that pro se plaintiff Matthew Merz’s pending discovery is voluminous and 17 unduly burdensome, and potentially unnecessary because their dispositive motion will 18 test the plausibility of Merz’s amended complaint’s factual allegations and legal theories, 19 not his evidence. [20] 21 1 Defendants are the City of Kalama, its police department and library, Kalama’s mayor, Mike Reuter, its employee Raphael Herrera, its Library Board Trustee Harlyn Jenkins, and its 22 councilmember Jon Stanfill. Merz has apparently served discovery on all but Stanfill. 1 Merz argues that the defendants’ request is unjustified and would prevent him 2 from gathering evidence central to his claims. He asserts his discovery is timely and 3 proportionate to the needs of his case, which involves a “complex” conspiracy claim and 4 a fact intensive Monell claim. Dkt. 39 at 3. Merz also argues he seeks communications 5 among the defendants and non-party conspirators about his performance, their official 6 actions with respect to him, and related city business, and that these records are public 7 records under the Public Records Act, RCW 42.56. Id. 8 Merz argues that he will be prejudiced by a stay because he has “credible 9 concerns” over potential evidence destruction and a stay will give the defendants more 10 time to deliberately suppress and destroy evidence. He asserts, but does not demonstrate, 11 that in August 2021, someone deleted from his city email account an email containing a 12 death threat, and that that is a concrete example of harm he may suffer if discovery is 13 stayed. 14 Defendants correctly contend the Court has broad discretion over discovery. Dkt. 15 36 at 3 (citing Rule 26(c)(1) and Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 16 1988)). It has discretion to stay discovery pending an early motion that is potentially 17 dispositive of the case or the subject of the discovery, and where that motion can be 18 decided absent discovery. Id. (citing DiMartini v. Ferrin, 889 F.2d 922 (9th Cir. 1989), 19 amended at 906 F.2d 465 (9th Cir. 1990); and Ministerio Roca Solida v. U.S. Dep't of 20 Fish & Wildlife, 288 F.R.D. 500, 506 (D. Nev. 2013)). 21 Defendants sought a Rule 12 dismissal of Merz’s initial complaint in January, Dkt. 22 17, and he did not oppose that motion. Instead, he sought and was granted leave to 1 correct the deficiencies in his initial complaint by filing an amended complaint. Dkt. 24. 2 His amended complaint is shorter, but Merz’s core claims are the same: 3 Defendants (a) conducted an unauthorized “character background investigation” on Plaintiff in violation of City library policy, falsely 4 branding him as racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, and even a child predator, and disseminated these defamatory labels to City officials, City 5 staff, and the public; (b) weaponized sensitive police information by releasing to City officials digitally manipulated, sexually degrading images 6 from a confidential investigation file pertaining to Plaintiff in order to humiliate and discredit him; (c) suppressed and ignored credible threats 7 against Plaintiff’s life from a third party, going so far as to delete a deaththreat email from Plaintiff’s City account and mute Plaintiff’s microphone 8 during a council meeting to prevent him from speaking about the danger he faced; and (d) abused legal processes by accessing Plaintiff’s Protected 9 Health Information (“PHI”) without lawful authority in order to pursue a baseless Extreme Risk Protection Order (“ERPO”) against Plaintiff 10 following the onset of this very lawsuit currently before the Court with the punitive intent to further harass, intimidate, and defame him, an action that 11 was swiftly leaked to local media to publicly smear Plaintiff. Each of these acts was carried out under official authority, without due process and 12 reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s substantive due process rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendment, and often in direct contravention of City 13 policy and state law. 14 Dkt. 27 at 5. 15 Defendants accurately assert that their anticipated motion will be decided on the 16 plausibility of Merz’s allegations, not his evidence, and if his amended complaint has 17 similarly failed to state a viable claim they will not have to respond to the more than 200 18 discovery requests Merz has served. Dkt. 36 at 2, 4. 19 The Court agrees. Merz avoided defendants’ prior, early challenge to the 20 plausibility of his claims by amending his complaint. The subject discovery was served 21 months after the defendants filed their initial motion, and just two weeks after Merz filed 22 his amended complaint. Dkt. 37. Defendants’ challenge to Merz’s new complaint was 1 wholly foreseeable, and it is fair and reasonable to resolve the viability of Merz’s claims 2 before forcing defendants to respond to discovery that may be moot. 3 Defendants’ motion for a protective order staying discovery in this case until the 4 Court resolves defendants’ promised motion is GRANTED. Defendants need not 5 respond to the pending discovery until further Court order. They shall preserve, and not 6 destroy, any potentially relevant evidence in the meantime. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated this 24th day of April, 2025. [9] A [11] BENJAMIN H. SETTLE [12] United States District Judge