Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02804/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02804-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 380
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Property Damage
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 06CV2804-BTM (WMc)

UNITED STATES District Court

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LUNA GAMING - SAN DIEGO, LLC, 

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv2804-BTM (WMc)

 

ORDER RE: CIVIL SUBPOENAS

SERVED ON THIRD PARTIES FOR

DEPOSITION TESTIMONY

vs.

DORSEY & WHITNEY, LLP, et al., ,

Defendant.

Plaintiff has served deposition subpoenas on several members of the Native American

community. Neither the Indian tribes nor these deponents are parties to the lawsuit. The

individuals are third party witnesses with knowledge and information relevant to the issues

involved in this civil case. The issue before the Court is whether tribal immunity protects these

individuals from a federal civil subpoena for deposition. The issue is controlled by the Ninth

Circuit’s decision in United States v. James, 980 F. 82nd 1314 (9th Cir., 1992).

Appellant James, a Native American, was convicted of rape committed on the Quinault

Indian Reservation. The gravamen of this case is whether the subpoena was sufficient under

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 34. James contended the indictment was defective because it

failed to state the jurisdictional fact that James is a Native American. James claimed that the

defect was fatal, rendering the indictment jurisdictionally defective. The Court held the indictment

was sufficient to withstand challenge after the verdict and the Quinault tribe did not waive its

immunity and is thus protected from responding to the subpoena issued by the District Court.

Case 3:06-cv-02804-BTM-WMC Document 157 Filed 04/17/09 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 06CV2804-BTM (WMc)

James also contended the District Court made a mistake in quashing the subpoena to the

Quinault tribe based on sovereign immunity. The District Court had issued a subpoena duces

tecum and an order to produce documents directed to the Director of Social Services of the

Quinault Nation. James was seeking information related to the victims alleged alcohol and drug

problems, which were in the possession of the Department of Social and Health Services. James

made two arguments. First, he argued the tribe’s immunity did not protect it from complying with

a valid subpoena from a federal District Court. Second, he also contended, if the tribe had

immunity, it had waived immunity by previously voluntarily supplying documents to the United

States. In its ruling the Ninth Circuit found tribal immunity protected the Indian Tribe from

responding to the federal criminal subpoena except where the Tribe had waived immunity. “Tribal

immunity... attaches to a tribe because of its status as a dependent domestic nation.... By making

individual Indians subject to federal prosecution for certain crimes, Congress did not address

implicitly...the amenability of the tribes to the processes of the court in which the prosecution is

commenced. Thus, we conclude that the Quinault tribe was possessed of tribal immunity at the

time the subpoena was served, unless the immunity had been waived.” at 1319. “The mere fact

that a statute, 18USC section 1153 (a), granted jurisdiction to a federal court does not

automatically abrogate the Indian Tribe’s sovereign immunity.” at 1319. 

James’ subpoena duces tecum sought to distinguish between two classifications of

documents: (a) general documents relating to the health and welfare of the alleged victim

possessed by the Housing Authority and (b) more specific and detailed records possessed by the

Department of Social and Health services, detailing the emotional, mental and physical problems

of the alleged victim. With regard to the general documents, the tribe had waived its sovereign

immunity by voluntarily turning over those documents to the government. With regard to the

more detailed documents possessed by the Department of Social and Health Services, immunity

had not been waived because the tribe had not turned over the more detailed documents possessed

by that department. Moreover, the tribal members had a greater expectation of privacy regarding

those more detailed documents.

The Ninth Circuit has made it clear that it expects the trial courts to follow its decision in 

Case 3:06-cv-02804-BTM-WMC Document 157 Filed 04/17/09 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 06CV2804-BTM (WMc)

James. Bishop Paiute tribe vs. County of Inyo, 275 F3d 893, 902-903 (9th Cir., 2002).

James supports the proposition that a tribe can waive its immunity for the purpose of

allowing limited civil discovery. Thus, if any of the subpoenaed deponents do not testify at

deposition, defendants cannot have these witnesses testify at trial or offer testimony by way of 

affidavit or any other form. However, if the witnesses do appear for deposition in a fair and timely

manner for Plaintiff, defendants are free to have the witnesses testify at trial. 

In their Joint Discovery Plan the parties identify the same potential deponents as possible

witnesses. The defendants do not assert any claim of sovereign immunity to defeat either party’s 

right to depose the witnesses plaintiff now seeks to depose. If the Court here grants the third

parties’ motion to quash, the defendants should not be free to call the same witnesses to testify at

trial or to offer their declarations or affidavits in support of any motion. Defendants must make an

election as to whether they intend to call any of these witnesses to testify at trial or to offer

evidence by way of their affidavit or declaration. Such decision must be in writing and submitted

to the court no later than April 24, 2009. If the Court does not receive written affirmation on or

before April 24, 2009, the defendants shall not be allowed to introduce the testimony of any of

these potential deponents in any form in this matter. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 17, 2009

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:06-cv-02804-BTM-WMC Document 157 Filed 04/17/09 Page 3 of 3