Kirkham v. City of Bellingham

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

Plaintiff raises claims relating to events leading up to and occurring on the date of his September 2023 arrest by officers of the Bellingham Police Department. See Dkt. 38. He asserts, as central to his claims and relevant to the pending motions, that Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to intentionally assault him and then alter the footage of body-worn cameras (BWC) using artificial intelligence (AI) to create “deepfake” video footage to conceal their misconduct and avoid accountability. ... Plaintiff argues the appointment of a neutral expert is warranted because: (1) the authenticity of the BWC footage cannot be determined without a forensic examination, and the expert will therefore assist the trier of fact and promote accurate fact finding; (2) his sworn complaint attesting that the footage was altered and Defendants’ denial of the same is evidence of a serious dispute than can be resolved through expert testimony; ... The Court notes, as an initial matter, a lack of clarity as to the complexity of the issues in this case. Plaintiff rests his assertion of complexity on his allegations of evidence tampering. However, as reflected in the discussion above, Plaintiff lacks any evidence other than his own assertions that evidence tampering has occurred. Rule 706 does not provide for the appointment of an expert to assist Plaintiff in developing or proving those assertions.

Authorities cited in the passage: Fed. R. Evid. 706 · Williams v. Lawson, No. C21-5536-MJP, 2023 WL 8545277 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 11, 2023) · Wilkins v. Barber, 562 F. Supp. 3d 943 (E.D. Cal. 2021)