Briggs v. Yi et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
JOSHUA D. BRIGGS,
Plaintiff,
v.
OREAN YI, in his personal capacity;
and MUNICIPALITY OF
ANCHORAGE,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:22-cv-00265-SLG
ORDER RE MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION
TO STAY DISCOVERY ON BODY WORN CAMERAS
Before the Court at Docket 60 is Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment. 	Plaintiff Joshua Briggs responded in opposition at Docket 65, and
Defendants replied at Docket 72. 	Also before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to
Stay Discovery on Body Worn Cameras at Docket 62. 	Mr. Briggs responded in
opposition at Docket 66, and Defendants replied at Docket 72.1 	Based on the
Court’s order at Docket 70,2 Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery on Body Worn
Cameras at Docket 62 is denied as it is in large part moot. 	However, the Court
has not entered an order precluding Mr. Briggs from questioning Officer Yi about
1 Defendants filed a combined reply in support of both motions at Docket 72.
2 See Docket 70 at 3 (denying Mr. Briggs’s discovery request for “all documents and
communications between the Municipality of Anchorage, including the Anchorage Police
Department Employees Association that mention or discuss body worn cameras”).
Case 3:22-cv-00265-SLG Document 82 Filed 10/16/23 Page 1 of 6

Case No. 3:22-cv-00265-SLG, Briggs v. Yi, et al.
Order re Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Motion to Stay Discovery on Body Worn
Cameras
Page 2 of 6
body worn cameras if he is deposed. 	Accordingly, this order will only discuss
Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. 	Oral argument was not
requested and was not necessary to the Court’s determination.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Briggs alleges violations of his constitutional rights arising under the
First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.3 His
claims arise from his arrest on July 12, 2022, for Disorderly Conduct pursuant to
Anchorage Municipal Code (“AMC”) 08.30.120(A)(2) and Harassment pursuant to
AMC 08.10.110(A)(1).4 	The factual background is set out in the Court’s Order re
Partial Summary Judgment at Docket 73; the Court assumes familiarity here.
Defendants filed the instant motion seeking summary judgment on two
counts. 	First, Defendants seek summary judgment on Count IV of Mr. Briggs’s
Amended Complaint, which alleges that the Municipality of Anchorage is liable for
a failure to properly train and supervise its police officers.5 	Specifically, the
Amended Complaint alleges that “Anchorage does not require its police officers to
wear body cameras or to record conversations and actions taking place in police
vehicles.” 	In addition, Mr. Briggs asserts that “Anchorage Police has an official,
written policy encouraging officers to charge people with disorderly conduct when
3 Docket 40 at 1.
4 Docket 40 at 3, ¶ 7, 6, ¶ 20.
5 Docket 60 at 1; see also Docket 40 at 12-16, ¶¶ 56-76.
Case 3:22-cv-00265-SLG Document 82 Filed 10/16/23 Page 2 of 6

Case No. 3:22-cv-00265-SLG, Briggs v. Yi, et al.
Order re Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Motion to Stay Discovery on Body Worn
Cameras
Page 3 of 6
they are being rude, uncooperative, fail to provide ID or challenge an officer’s
authority.” 	Mr. Briggs contends that “[t]his policy actively encourages police
officers to violate Constitutional rights.”6
Second, Defendants seek summary judgment on Count V of Mr. Briggs’s
Amended Complaint with regards to the Municipality of Anchorage only.7 Count V
seeks punitive damages against the Municipality for its failure to equip Anchorage
police officers with body worn cameras.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) directs a court to “grant summary
judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material
fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Rule 56(d) provides
that when facts are unavailable to the non-moving party, that party can request
additional time to respond to the motion. 	A party requesting a Rule 56(d)
continuance must show: “(1) it has set forth in affidavit form the specific facts it
hopes to elicit from further discovery; (2) the facts sought exist; and (3) the sought-
after facts are essential to oppose summary judgment.”8
6 Docket 40 at 14, ¶ 70.
7 Docket 60 at 11-12.
8 Fam. Home & Fin. Ctr., Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., 525 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2008)
(citing California ex rel. Cal. Dep’t of Toxic Substances Control v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 779
(9th Cir. 1998)). When Family Home & Finance Center was decided, Rule 56(d) was
enumerated as 56(f) in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Case 3:22-cv-00265-SLG Document 82 Filed 10/16/23 Page 3 of 6

Case No. 3:22-cv-00265-SLG, Briggs v. Yi, et al.
Order re Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Motion to Stay Discovery on Body Worn
Cameras
Page 4 of 6
DISCUSSION
I. 	Rule 56(d) Request
Mr. Briggs seeks additional time to respond to Defendants’ motion with
respect to Court IV 	because he “does not have at his disposal the evidence
necessary to fully defend against this motion.”9 	He asserts that he “has not had
the opportunity to collect the evidence necessary to establish all elements of
standing” on this claim, and that “the evidence exists and is not speculative.”10
While Mr. Briggs claims that “the Municipality has vehemently opposed compliance
with Briggs’s discovery requests,” it appears that Defendants did, starting from
April 13, 2023, provide him with some information regarding the implementation of
body worn cameras in Anchorage.11 	As to Mr. Briggs’s discovery request for “all
documents and communications between the Municipality of Anchorage, including
the Anchorage Police Department Employees Association that mention or discuss
body worn cameras,” the Court denied that request as being irrelevant and, even
if relevant, disproportional to the needs of the case.12 Furthermore, Mr. Briggs filed
suit in December 2022, and Defendants filed the instant motion for partial summary
9 Docket 65 at 1, 3-4.
10 Docket 65 at 5.
11 Docket 65 at 4; see also Docket 72 at 2-5; Docket 72-1 at 2-4; Docket 72-2 at 1-4; Docket 72-
3 at 1-2.
12 See Docket 70 at 3.
Case 3:22-cv-00265-SLG Document 82 Filed 10/16/23 Page 4 of 6

Case No. 3:22-cv-00265-SLG, Briggs v. Yi, et al.
Order re Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Motion to Stay Discovery on Body Worn
Cameras
Page 5 of 6
judgment in June 2023.13 	It is now October 2023. 	It is no longer “so early in the
litigation” that “a party has had [no] realistic opportunity to pursue discovery relating
to its theory of the case.”14 And yet the record also reflects that Defendants have
had challenges in litigating this case and only recently did a new attorney enter an
appearance for Defendants.15
The Court recently vacated all pretrial deadlines as agreed-upon by both
parties, and the parties have been ordered to file a proposed pretrial scheduling
order by October 27, 2023.16 In light of the foregoing, the request for a Rule 56(d)
continuance is GRANTED as follows: 	The parties’ proposed scheduling order
shall include a deadline for Plaintiff to file his opposition to the partial summary
judgment motion with respect to Count IV. 	If the parties are unable to agree on
that deadline, the parties’ proposed order shall set out each party’s proposed
deadline for that response and the Court will then set the deadline.
II. 	Punitive Damages Against the Municipality of Anchorage
Defendants also contend in their motion that Mr. Briggs’s claim for punitive
damages against the Municipality of Anchorage in Count V of his complaint cannot
13 Docket 1; Docket 60.
14 Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co. v. Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes of Fort Peck Rsrv., 323 F.3d
767, 773 (9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted).
15 Docket 76, 77.
16 Docket 81.
Case 3:22-cv-00265-SLG Document 82 Filed 10/16/23 Page 5 of 6

Case No. 3:22-cv-00265-SLG, Briggs v. Yi, et al.
Order re Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Motion to Stay Discovery on Body Worn
Cameras
Page 6 of 6
succeed because the Municipality is immune.17 	Defendants are correct; “a
municipality 	is 	immune 	from 	punitive 	damages 	under 	42 	U.S.C. 	§ 	1983.”18
Accordingly, that part of Claim V is dismissed with prejudice.
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery on Body Worn Cameras at Docket 62
is DENIED as it is in large part moot;
2. Defendants’ 	Motion 	for 	Partial 	Summary 	Judgment 	at 	Docket 	60 	is
GRANTED in part in that Mr. Briggs’s claim for punitive damages against
only the Municipality of Anchorage in Count V of his complaint is dismissed
with prejudice; and
3. Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment regarding Court IV is
DEFERRED and the Court will enter a deadline for Plaintiff to file a response
to that portion of the motion after receiving the parties’ proposed pretrial
scheduling order.
DATED this 16th day of October 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17 Docket 60 at 11-12; see also Docket 40 at 16, ¶¶ 77-79 (Am. Complaint) (seeking punitive
damages against both Officer Yi and the Municipality).
18 City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U.S. 247, 271 (1981).
Case 3:22-cv-00265-SLG Document 82 Filed 10/16/23 Page 6 of 6