Case 2:20-cv-00887-RAJ Document 88 Filed 07/30/20 Page 1 of 3

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10
11
12

BLACK LIVES MATTER SEATTLE-KING
COUNTY, ABIE EKENEZAR, SHARON
SAKAMOTO, MURACO KYASHNATOCHA, ALEXANDER WOLDEAB,
NATHALIE GRAHAM, AND
ALEXANDRA CHEN,

15

ORDER RE ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE HEARING ON JULY 31,
2020

Plaintiffs,

13
14

Case No. 2:20-cv-00887-RAJ

v.
CITY OF SEATTLE, SEATTLE POLICE
DEPARTMENT,

16

Defendant.

17
18

The Court previously entered a preliminary injunction in this case. Dkt. # 42.

19

Plaintiffs now request that this Court hold Defendant in contempt for violating that

20

preliminary injunction. Dkt. # 51. To that end, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Order to

21

Show Cause Why City of Seattle Should Not Be Held in Contempt for Violating the

22

Preliminary Injunction, id., accompanied by several declarations, Dkt. ## 52-75, 79.

23

Defendant responded to that motion, Dkt. # 78, and submitted several declarations of its

24

own, Dkt. ## 80-84. The motion is set to be heard tomorrow, July 31, 2020.

25

In its response, Defendant cites due process concerns and asks the Court for

26

additional time to “substantively respond” to Plaintiffs’ charges. Dkt. # 78 at 4-5, 12-13.

27

Without ruling on the underlying motion, the Court acknowledges that it must review

28

ORDER – 1

 Case 2:20-cv-00887-RAJ Document 88 Filed 07/30/20 Page 2 of 3

1

more than the parties’ briefs and affidavits to determine if Defendant is in contempt of

2

the Court’s order. A civil contempt proceeding is a trial, governed by Fed. R. Civ. P.

3

43(a), rather than a hearing on a motion, governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(c). Hoffman v.

4

Beer Drivers & Salesmen’s Local Union No. 888, Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,

5

Warehousemen & Helpers of Am., 536 F.2d 1268, 1277 (9th Cir. 1976). As such, a civil

6

contempt proceeding may not ordinarily be tried on the basis of affidavits. Id. Of course,

7

when “the affidavits offered in support of a finding of contempt are uncontroverted,” a

8

court need not “hold a full-blown evidentiary hearing.” Peterson v. Highland Music,

9

Inc., 140 F.3d 1313, 1324 (9th Cir. 1998). Instead, the court may “narrow the issues by

10

requiring that affidavits on file be controverted by counter-affidavits and may thereafter

11

treat as true the facts set forth in uncontroverted affidavits.” Id. (quoting Hoffman, 536

12

F.2d at 1277).
Given that Defendant “controverts” much of Plaintiffs’ evidence and that

13
14

Defendant has raised due process concerns, the Court believes that an evidentiary hearing

15

is warranted. An in-person hearing, of course, is not feasible. The courthouse in which

16

this Court sits is currently closed, and the precise date of its reopening is uncertain. Thus,

17

tomorrow’s hearing will not be for oral argument; rather, the Court will discuss the best

18

way to proceed with an evidentiary hearing. The parties should be ready to discuss the

19

following list of non-exhaustive topics:

20

• The date of the hearing

21

• The length of the hearing;

22

• The format of the hearing;

23

• Preferred technology to conduct the hearing;

24

• Waiver of the hearing and, in lieu, a proceeding under the affidavits as
described in Peterson, 140 F.3d at 1324;

25
26

///

27

///

28

ORDER – 2

 Case 2:20-cv-00887-RAJ Document 88 Filed 07/30/20 Page 3 of 3

1

• Defendant’s plan regarding the 1394 Body Worn Videos described in Cesar
Hidalgo-Landeros’s declaration (Dkt. # 82).

2
3
4

DATED this 30th day of July, 2020.

A

5
6

The Honorable Richard A. Jones
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER – 3