Plaintiffs asked to identify and describe their tattoos; They say the request is racist

Four Black men are suing a Seattle Central District strip mall for negligent security after a 2021 shooting that injured four people, as first reported by the Seattle Times. They claim to have received a racist discovery request from the defense attorneys.

In June, Jackson Investors North, owners of the strip mall, requested the adult plaintiffs to identify and describe their tattoos, suggesting they had evidence linking the victims to a local street gang. The plaintiffs denied having gang-related tattoos and found the request insensitive, racist, and harassing.

In legal terms, “discovery” refers to the pre-trial phase in a lawsuit, during which each party can obtain evidence from the opposing party through various means. The purpose of discovery is to prevent surprises during the trial, allow both sides to gather relevant information, and promote a fair resolution of the case.

Crime blotter: Man allegedly stabbed, assaulted by ‘as many as 15′ kids on King County Metro bus

Legal scholars note that Black and Latino individuals are more likely to be identified as gang members by police.

A subsidiary of Paul Allen’s Vulcan Real Estate, Jackson Investors filed a request for photos and descriptions of the men’s tattoos. The plaintiffs argue this request is intimidating, overreaching, and invasive.

“Gross abuse of the discovery process”

On Aug. 15, the men filed a motion seeking a protective order to prevent what they describe as “gross abuse of the discovery process” by the defendants, accusing them of using harassing and racist discovery tactics.

The allegations of racism come as the state Supreme Court prioritizes eradicating racial bias and systemic disparities in civil actions. The motion stated, “Beneath Defendant’s request is an assumption grounded in stereotype and racism that the Court should not endorse.”

MyNorthwest News: Several children part of alleged shoplifting scheme seen in Seattle

Mehreen Nadeem, an attorney for Jackson Investors, responded in an email to the Seattle Times saying, “We will respond to the pending motion in accordance with court rules.” She added that the defendants strongly deny the plaintiffs’ characterization of their discovery requests.

The shooting occurred on April 11, 2021, at a strip mall at 23rd Avenue South and South Jackson Street. The suspects were never caught. Thomas Callandret II, his two children, and his uncle were walking through the parking lot when the gunfire erupted. Thomas and his 2-year-old daughter were shot, with the girl losing vision in one eye. Miles Davis and Terrence Williams, who were walking to get lunch after church, were also injured.

Claims of inadequate security despite frequent criminal activity

The victims filed a lawsuit in October against Jackson Investors and several businesses at the strip mall, claiming inadequate security despite frequent criminal activity in the area. The plaintiffs were not involved in the shooting.

The plaintiffs’ attorney stated that his firm, which has handled numerous negligent security cases, has never received such a request for photos and explanations of gun violence victims’ tattoos before.

Seattle Police: 2 men dead after motorcycle crashed into fire truck at high speed

The motion emphasized that the plaintiffs were innocent victims of gunfire in a poorly managed and unsecured parking lot. Attorney Jonathan Nolley declined to comment beyond the motion.

The state Supreme Court has issued several rulings to create a more just legal system, explicitly calling on lawyers and judges to address institutional racism.

Precedents of discovery requests

There are precedents related to discriminatory discovery requests, particularly in the contect of employment discrimination and civil rights cases. Courts have generally held that discovery requests must be relevant, non-harassing, and not overly broad or invasive.

For example, in Aman v. Cort Furniture Rental, the Third Circuit ruled that evidence of discrimination against other employees is relevant and discoverable. Similarly, in Glass v. Philadelphia Electric Co., the court found that evidence of other acts of discrimination could be used to show a pattern of discriminatory behavior. There are precedents related to discriminatory discovery requests, particularly in the context of employment discrimination and civil rights cases. Courts have generally held that discovery requests must be relevant, non-harassing, and not overly broad or invasive.

In cases where discovery requests are perceived as racially biased or harassing, courts have sometimes issued protective orders to limit or deny such requests. In this case, that has yet to happen.

A hearing on the motion is scheduled for Aug. 28.

Bill Kaczaraba is a content editor at MyNorthwest. You can read his stories here. Follow Bill on X, formerly known as Twitter, here and email him here.

©2024 Cox Media Group