United States District Court, D. Oregon
Snyder, Carl Post, and John David Burgess, Law Offices of
Daniel Snyder, Of Attorneys for Plaintiff.
O'Kasey, Hart Wagner LLP, Of Attorneys for Defendants
Washington County, Pat Garrett, and John Black.
R. Barraclough, Portland City Attorney's Office, Of
Attorneys for Defendants City of Portland and Jeffrey Myers.
Jonathan Christensen, pro se.
OPINION AND ORDER
Michael H. Simon, United States District Judge
Angela Branford (“Branford”) is a Deputy Sheriff
in the Washington County Sheriff's Office
(“WCSO”). Branford brings this lawsuit under 42
U.S.C. §1983, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
and Oregon state law against Defendants Washington County,
Oregon (“Washington County” or the
“County”); Washington County Sheriff Pat Garrett;
WCSO employees or former employees Jonathan Christensen and
John Black; the City of Portland (the “City”);
and Portland Police Bureau Detective (“PPB”)
Jeffrey Myers. For purposes of this Opinion and Order,
Defendants Washington County, Pat Garrett, and John Black are
collectively referred to as “Defendants.” Before
the Court is Defendants' motion to strike six changes (or
“corrections”) that Plaintiff has made to her
deposition testimony. For the reasons that follow,
Defendants' motion is denied.
First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges the following
facts against Washington County, Pat Garrett, John Black, and
John Christensen. The Washington County Sheriff's Office
tolerates, and subjects female employees to, sexual
misconduct by male officers. During or before 2014, Defendant
Christensen, Plaintiff's training officer and supervisor,
initiated a sexual relationship with Plaintiff, which
continued intermittently for several years. Plaintiff tried
to end the relationship with Christensen several times.
Christensen responded by pressuring Plaintiff to continue a
sexual relationship with him. Christensen began stalking
Plaintiff, including while on-duty, and used County resources
to do so. On or about March 7, 2015, after Plaintiff tried to
break off the relationship, Christensen grabbed and choked
Plaintiff at her home. Christensen thereafter made explicit
and implicit threats of further physical violence to coerce
Plaintiff to have sexual intercourse with him. Plaintiff
initially did not report Christensen's assault or
misconduct. Plaintiff was afraid to report Christensen to
command staff at the WCSO because of the way other female
employs had been treated after complaining of sexual
harassment, the failure by the WCSO to discipline
perpetrators of sex and gender discrimination, and because
she feared retaliation.
April 2015, after a newspaper report published allegations of
widespread sexual harassment of female Sheriff's Office
employees, the WCSO began an in-house investigation. During
the investigation, Plaintiff was interviewed about
Christensen. After Plaintiff's interview regarding
Christensen, her workplace became increasingly hostile.
19, 2016, Plaintiff was again subjected to sexual harassment
by a WCSO officer, Justin Ulrich. On May 23, 2016, Plaintiff
met with Defendant Garrett and Defendant Black. At the time,
Defendant Black was the commander in charge of the WCSO
internal affairs section. Plaintiff told Garrett and Black
about Ulrich's misconduct. During that interview, Black
said to Plaintiff, “So I am going to ask you. What kind
of relationship did you have with Ulrich?” Plaintiff
responded, “We did not have a relationship.”
Black replied, “Are you sure you don't text each
other? Do you Facebook?” Black tried to get Plaintiff
to say that she had a personal relationship with Ulrich when,
in fact, none existed.
took Plaintiff's deposition on February 5, 2018. The
court reporter delivered a transcript to Plaintiff's
counsel on February 9, 2018. On March 2, 2018,
Plaintiff's counsel served a Deposition Correction Sheet
that contained thirteen changes to Plaintiff's deposition
testimony. Defendants object to six of these corrections,
arguing only that they are not correction of an error by the
court reporter and thus not allowed under Rule 30(e) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants do not argue
that Plaintiff's changes were untimely or are a sham
intended avoid summary judgment by attempting to create an
issue of fact.
(1) Review; Statement of Changes. On request by the
deponent or a party before the deposition is completed, the
deponent must be allowed 30 days after being notified by the
officer that the ...