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 ORDER GRANTING

MOTION TO QUASH - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

MART LIIKANE, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SEATTLE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-1829L

ORDER GRANTING

MOTION TO QUASH

This matter comes before the Court on defendants’ motion to quash the subpoena

duces tecum that plaintiff served on defense counsel, Stephen Larson, commanding him

to appear for a deposition on January 10, 2007 and to bring with him “[a]ll the papers and

documents that you and your partner have filed and served in this case.” (Dkt. #65). 

Plaintiff has not shown good cause to obtain the discovery he seeks. The attorneyclient privilege and work product doctrines are bedrock principles. A party would have to

make a very compelling showing to depose another party’s counsel, especially one who,

as in this case, has done nothing to make himself a witness in the case. Plaintiff has not

come close to making such a showing. He has offered no explanation for why he

allegedly needs to depose defense counsel or obtain copies of the documents in his file. 

Case 2:05-cv-01829-RSL Document 81 Filed 01/25/07 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 ORDER GRANTING

MOTION TO QUASH - 2

Instead, it appears that plaintiff is merely using the subpoena to obtain another copy of

documents he should already have. He has already received a copy of all the papers and

documents that defendants have filed and served in this case. 

Nevertheless, and even though the documents are available to the public, plaintiff

seeks the documents from defense counsel because “the court has destroyed (according to

clerk) originally filed documents and plaintiff does not operate the electronical [sic]

system.” Plaintiff’s Response at p. 1. Defendants should not be subjected to the cost and

burden of compiling another set of documents for plaintiff’s convenience. If he would

like another copy of the documents filed in this case, he can use the electronic filing

system or come to the courthouse and view the docket. He may request from the clerk

copies of any documents in the docket for a nominal fee. 

Accordingly, defendants’ motion to quash the subpoena is GRANTED and the

subpoena is quashed.

Both parties have requested that the Court impose sanctions against the other

party. Plaintiff’s request for sanctions is frivolous and is denied. Defendants’ request

has more merit. Plaintiff has multiplied the proceedings and needlessly forced defendants

to incur additional costs by seeking to depose opposing counsel without any legal basis.

Furthermore, although plaintiff states that the Court clerk informed him that original

documents are destroyed, he apparently made no effort to inquire about obtaining copies. 

In addition, plaintiff’s subpoena did not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, and he sought to take discovery after the deadline to do so expired, although

he subsequently filed a motion to extend that deadline. Although the issue is a close call,

the Court has decided to deny defendants’ request for sanctions because plaintiff is

proceeding pro se and because he may have been confused about the proper way to

Case 2:05-cv-01829-RSL Document 81 Filed 01/25/07 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 ORDER GRANTING

MOTION TO QUASH - 3

obtain the documents. The Court may impose sanctions in the future, however, if

plaintiff fails to comply with the Local Rules or Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or if he

again multiplies or obstructs the proceedings in violation of General Rule 3.

DATED this 25th day of January, 2007.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01829-RSL Document 81 Filed 01/25/07 Page 3 of 3