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 - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

MATTHEW G. SILVA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHRISTINE GREGOIRE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5731 RJB/KLS

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

 MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION

 SUBPOENAS 

This civil rights action has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Karen L.

Strombom pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local MJR 3 and 4. Before the Court is

Defendants’ motion to quash the depositions of several non-party inmate witnesses. (Dkt. # 73). 

Plaintiff has not responded to Defendants’ motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds

that the motion should be granted.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a Washington State prison inmate currently incarcerated at Florence Corrections

Center (FCC) in Florence, Arizona. (Dkt. # 73, Exh. 1). Plaintiff was formerly incarcerated at the

Washington Corrections Center (WCC) between October 4, 2005 and November 30, 2005. (Id.). 

Case 3:05-cv-05731-RJB Document 89 Filed 12/07/06 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 ORDER - 2

Plaintiff alleges that his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated while he was

incarcerated at WCC. (Dkt. # 14). 

Plaintiff seeks to depose Washington State inmates Michael Brady, DOC #847662, Toby

Masse DOC #947864, Anthony Boteilho DOC #819679, and Jeffrey McKee DOC #882819. (Dkt.

# 73, Exh. 2, Attach. A). Plaintiff noted these depositions for October 12, 2006. (Id.). 

Defendants’ counsel did not receive notice of these depositions until October 9, 2006, therefore,

the depositions did not take place on October 12, 2006. (Id.). Plaintiff informed Defendants’

counsel on October 16, 2006 that he intends to note the depositions of Washington State inmates

Troy Kamps DOC #813062, Obadiah Hernandez DOC #869008, and Edward King DOC #279368

and Hawaii State inmate Joshua Reed. (Id.). Plaintiff also informed Defendants’ counsel that each

of the inmates he seeks to depose are friendly witnesses and are willing to provide their statements

voluntarily and without need of a subpoena. (Id.). 

II. DISCUSSION

A party may obtain discovery only regarding matters “relevant to the claim or defense of

any party. . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The Court may limit discovery if the discovery sought “is

obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive”.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). The court may order that requested discovery not be had, or may be had

only in a specified manner, including limiting the type of discovery allowed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

Defendants argue that the depositions should be quashed because they will not produce

evidence relevant to this lawsuit and Plaintiff can present the testimony of the witnesses through

declarations. Of the seven depositions Plaintiff has noted or indicated he will note, Defendant

submits that five cannot provide information relevant to this lawsuit. Neither Michael Brady, Toby

Case 3:05-cv-05731-RJB Document 89 Filed 12/07/06 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 ORDER - 3

Masse, Jeffrey McKee, Troy Kamps, nor Edward King were at WCC during the time period

relevant to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and, therefore, could not provide information

relevant to the violations Plaintiff has alleged occurred at WCC, by WCC staff at that time. (Id. at

Exhibit 2). Joshua Reed is not a Washington State inmate and, therefore, has never been

incarcerated at WCC and could not possibly provide information relevant to the violations Plaintiff

has alleged occurred at WCC, by WCC staff at the time period relevant to Plaintiff’s First

Amended Complaint. (Id.). Defendants submit that none of these individuals have any personal

knowledge of any facts relevant to this proceeding. Plaintiff has not shown any evidence to the

contrary. Because Plaintiff fails to show what relevant evidence he believes these individuals

possess, the Court agrees that their depositions should be quashed.

Additionally, the more burdensome and expensive method of deposition discovery is

unnecessary where Plaintiff can obtain the testimony of friendly witnesses through declarations.

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to quash (Dkt. # 73) is GRANTED.

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff and counsel for Defendants.

DATED this 7th day of December, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05731-RJB Document 89 Filed 12/07/06 Page 3 of 3