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

ORD ON MTN TO 

COMPEL COMPLIANCE - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

ECOLASTICO DE LEON-GRANADOS,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

ELLER & SONS TREES, INC., et al.,

Defendant(s).

NO. C06-306P

ORDER ON MOTION TO ENFORCE

COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA

DUCES TECUM

The above-entitled Court, having received and reviewed:

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce Compliance by Plum Creek Timber Company, Inc. with

Subpoena Duces Tecum

2. Third Party Plum Creek Timber Company, Inc.’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion

to Enforce Subpoena Duces Tecum

3. Reply Supporting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce Compliance by Plum Creek Timber Company,

Inc. with Subpoena Duces Tecum

and all exhibits and declarations attached thereto, makes the following ruling:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is PARTIALLY GRANTED and PARTIALLY

DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs will bear Plum Creek’s costs reasonably associated

with complying with Plaintiffs’ discovery requests.

Pursuant to Plaintiff’s subpoena duces tecum, Third Party Plum Creek is ordered to provide to

Plaintiffs all materials in their possession which contain information relating to:

1. The hours worked by employees of Defendants.

2. The payments made to employees of Defendants

Case 2:06-cv-00306-MJP Document 10 Filed 05/10/06 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

ORD ON MTN TO 

COMPEL COMPLIANCE - 2

3. Where employees of Defendants performed their work

4. The location of the cooler and storage facilities.

5. The dates on which the employees of Defendants worked.

6. The piece-work unit totals of Defendants’ employees, their daily arrival and departure

times and which supervisors employed by Defendants were present on the days when

Defendants’ employees worked.

7. The amounts paid by Plum Creek to Defendants for their services

8. Planting summaries, planting inspection reports, pre-commercial thinning summaries or

inspection reports related to work performed by Defendants during the time period

covered by the allegations of the lawsuit.

Although Plum Creek is correct that FRCP 26 allows the court to limit discovery if it is

determined that “the discovery sought. . . is obtainable from some other source that is more

convenient, less burdensome or less expensive,” part of Plaintiffs’ case against the Defendants is that

they have falsified their records. They have a right to develop alternate sources of information in order

to demonstrate that Defendants’ recordkeeping practices are suspect. Although Plum Creek argues

that Plaintiffs must provide evidentiary proof of their allegations of falsifying records to support this

request, they cite no authority for that proposition.

Plum Creek’s argument that the requested discovery is burdensome and expensive is

significantly undercut by Plaintiffs’ willingness to bear the costs reasonably associated with complying

with their subpoenas. Plum Creek is also free to fashion a protective order (preferably in collaboration

with Plaintiffs) which shields any proprietary or confidential information from general dissemination.

Case 2:06-cv-00306-MJP Document 10 Filed 05/10/06 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

ORD ON MTN TO 

COMPEL COMPLIANCE - 3

The clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to all counsel of record.

Dated: May _10__, 2006

AMarsha J. Pechman

U.S. District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-00306-MJP Document 10 Filed 05/10/06 Page 3 of 3