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 DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ESTABLISH A SINGLE SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFYING DOCUMENTS

Page - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

EUGENE BEAUREGARD, SUSAN

BEAUREGARD (husband and wife),

Plaintiffs,

v.

LEWIS COUNTY WASHINGTON, and

LEWIS COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, and

LEWIS COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5738RJB

 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO ESTABLISH A

SINGLE SYSTEM FOR

IDENTIFYING DOCUMENTS

This matter comes before this Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Establish a Single System for

Identifying Documents. Dkt. 21-1. Plaintiffs have moved to adopt a uniform document identification

system in order to facilitate discovery for an allegedly complex case. Defendants have responded, denying

that such an order is necessary and refuting Plaintiffs’ allegations of document mishandling. Dkt. 25. 

Plaintiffs have replied to this with a “Rule 16 Motion” renewing their original motion. Dkt. 27-1. 

While Plaintiffs’ claims are fairly unclear, they do not appear to present the type of complex

litigation contemplated in the Manual of Complex Litigation. The Federal Judicial Center intends this

manual to apply to technically or procedurally complex litigation such as antitrust, CERCLA (superfund),

civil RICO, and mass-tort class action lawsuits. See Manual of Complex Litigation at 1-3, 517. This case,

while admittedly involving tedious and detailed discovery and factual background, does not involve the

complex and highly technical questions of law and fact that the Manual contemplates. Additionally, the

Manual’s guidelines are not binding procedural rules, Id. at 1, and this Court does not elect to adopt its

document indexing suggestions.

Case 3:05-cv-05738-RJB Document 30 Filed 04/10/06 Page 1 of 2
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 DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ESTABLISH A SINGLE SYSTEM FOR IDENTIFYING DOCUMENTS

Page - 2

Plaintiffs’ have acquired much of their documentation through public disclosure requests. While

some of these documents may be relevant to this litigation, the Court does not expect Defendants to index a

public records response. Plaintiffs may communicate specific questions for clarification to Defendants’

counsel.

The Court expects the parties to cooperate. A “Vaughn Index” method of indexing and crossreferencing documents is not appropriate for this case. See Dkt. 21-1 at 4. In Vaughn, the Court ordered

the use of an indexing and cross-referencing system in response to the Government’s refusal to disclose

massive documents in their entirety. Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820, 827 (D.C. Cir. 1973). Unlike

Vaughn, Plaintiffs have not shown that this case involves either Defendants’ refusal to disclose documents

or a need to cross-reference documents to arguments against disclosure.

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants produced unsigned documents. Defendants’ counsel adopted and

ratified an electronic signature. Dkt. 25 at 3. The electronic signature of documents is sufficient for this

case. Similarly, the Court reminds Plaintiffs that both Plaintiffs appearing pro se must sign all court

documents. Although a non-attorney may appear pro se on behalf of him or herself, he or she has no

authority to appear as an attorney for others. C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697

(9th Cir. 1987). In the future, the Court may not consider any documents not signed by both Plaintiffs. See

Dkt. 21-3 at 3; Dkt. 21-5 at 2; Dkt. 29.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to have this Court establish a single system for identifying

documents is DENIED. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiffs and Defendants’

counsel.

DATED this 10th day of April, 2006.

ARobert J. Bryan

United States District Judge 

Case 3:05-cv-05738-RJB Document 30 Filed 04/10/06 Page 2 of 2