Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_22-cv-00265/USCOURTS-akd-3_22-cv-00265-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joshua D. Briggs
Plaintiff
Municipality of Anchorage
Defendant
Orean Yi
Defendant

Document Text:

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 soughtafter 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