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

 ORDER

Page - 1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

SILVER VALLEY PARTNERS, LLC, a

Washington Limited Liability Company;

JAMES D. CHRISTIANSON, an individual;

the JAMES D. CHRISTIANSON LIVING

TRUST, a Trust formed under the laws of the

State of Washington; STERLING

PARTNERS, LLC, a Washington Limited

Liability Company; CHRISTIANSON

FAMILY, LLC, a Washington Limited

Liability Company; SILVER VALLEY

EAGLES, LLC, a Washington Limited

Liability Company; and NONSTOP

REVENUE, LLC, a Washington Limited

Liability Company,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RAY DE MOTTE, an individual; CAROL

STEPHAN, an individual; MELANIE

FARRAND, an individual; SILVER VALLEY

CAPITAL, LLC, an Idaho Limited Liability

Company,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5590 RBL

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO

QUASH

This matter is before the court on the Motions to Quash or Modify Subpoenas, or Alternatively, for

a Protective Order, filed by the following non-party entities: Sterling Mining Company [Dkt. #145] (joined

By defendants Stephan [Dkt. #170]); Shoshone Silver Mining Company [Dkt. # 146]; Ashington Mining

Company [Dkt. # 148]; Signal Silver-Gold, Inc. [Dkt. #149]; and Whitedelf Mining and Development

[Dkt. # 154]. 

Case 3:05-cv-05590-RBL Document 215 Filed 09/21/06 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

 ORDER

Page - 2

Each entity seeks to quash subpoenas issued in this case to financial institutions, regarding the

financial records of these non-party entities. The moving non-parties argue that the information sought is

private, sensitive, and confidential, and emphasize that they are not parties to the instant litigation. They

argue that the requests are over-broad and that they are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery

of admissible evidence. 

The plaintiffs respond to Sterling Mining’s Motion that there is already a protective order in place.

They argue that Sterling is controlled by Defendants DeMotte and Stephan, and that the defendants have

consistently sought to delay or otherwise thwart discovery. They argue in response to Whitedelf’ Motion

that Carol Stephan “controls” Whitedelf and that the allegations against Stephan regarding the misuse and

misdirection of funds was done through Whitedelf. 

Plaintiffs argue that the motions of Shoshone Silver, Signal Silver-Gold, and Ashington are

untimely, and that Idaho law permits broad discovery into alleged racketeering schemes such as the one

alleged by the Plaintiffs. They also argue that the Defendants are involved in and/or control these entities

and that each is “deeply involved” in the frauds and conspiracies they allege. 

 Another theme throughout this particular series of motions (and related motions not addressed

here) is the court’s scheduling order and the defendants’ claim that additional time is needed to prepare for

the defense of this matter. On the other hand, the Plaintiffs argue that the defendants have sought to delay

discovery.

The Court is, through an Order which is issued in conjunction with this Order, granting the

Defendants’ Motion to Transfer this action to Idaho under 28 U.S.C. §1404. That decision is to some

extent bolstered by the arguments made here, as the non-party entities from whom the discovery is sought

are Idaho-based, and the authority supporting the discovery are at least in part Idaho laws. It is clear that

there is some connection between the named defendants and the entities moving here – a point not

mentioned by any of the moving parties. 

In any event, the parties’ concerns about the scheduling order and the time necessary for fully

litigating this obviously complex case will be addressed by the fact that the transferee court will necessarily

have to “get up to speed” on this case, and that court’s subsequent scheduling order will govern the future

discovery and motion practice in the case. 

Case 3:05-cv-05590-RBL Document 215 Filed 09/21/06 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

 ORDER

Page - 3

For these reasons, this court will GRANT the motions to quash. This Order is “without prejudice,”

as the transferee court will be in a superior position to evaluate the connections and the application of

Idaho law to the claims of racketeering, conspiracy and fraud under Idaho law. 

Dated this 21st day of September, 2006

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 3:05-cv-05590-RBL Document 215 Filed 09/21/06 Page 3 of 3