Court Opinion

ID: 9897976
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:27:30.998936+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:42.336426
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION
                      (not the court’s final written decision)

The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the
written opinions that are originally filed by the court.
A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions
can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an
order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential
purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits
(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the
opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court
decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An
opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of
the court.
The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it
has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official
text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes
of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the
language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of
charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports.
For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential
(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

                                                                             FILED
                                                                           JUNE 6, 2023
                                                                  In the Office of the Clerk of Court
                                                                 WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
                                    DIVISION THREE

       In the Matter of the Petition of the          )          No. 38825-5-III
       BENTON COUNTY WATER                           )          (consolidated with
       CONSERVANCY BOARD to Perpetuate               )          No. 38874-3-III)
       Testimony.                                    )
                                                     )
                                                     )
       BENTON COUNTY WATER                           )
       CONSERVANCY BOARD,                            )
                                                     )         PUBLISHED OPINION
                            Respondent,              )
                                                     )
          v.                                         )
                                                     )
       WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT                   )
       OF ECOLOGY,                                   )
                                                     )
                            Petitioner.              )

               PENNELL, J. — CR 27 authorizes presuit depositions in limited circumstances

       in order to perpetuate witness testimony. Few Washington cases have interpreted this

       rule. But analogous federal authority requires a preliminary showing of an anticipated

       witness’s unavailability before a perpetuation deposition may occur. We find the federal

       authorities persuasive. CR 27 is not a general discovery device. Rather, the rule is limited

       to circumstances where a petitioner can show a need to preserve witness testimony due

       to a risk of future unavailability. Here, there has been no such showing. The superior

       court orders granting CR 27 depositions are therefore reversed.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       Nos. 38825-5-III; 38874-3-III
       In re Benton County Water Conservancy Bd.

                                                  FACTS

              Frank Tiegs, LLC purchased water rights from Plymouth Farms and filed a water

       right change/transfer application with the Benton County Water Conservancy Board.

       In June 2021, members of the Board met with the Department of Ecology to discuss

       the Tiegs application and whether the change was permitted under the Family Farm

       Water Act (FFWA), chapter 90.66 RCW. The meeting included four Ecology employees

       and, according to the Board, the employees affirmed the Board’s ability to approve the

       transfer. Contrary to what was allegedly represented at the meeting, Ecology subsequently

       published a document stating the FFWA prohibited such transfers.

              Concerned about Ecology’s perceived change in position, the Board filed CR 27

       petitions in Yakima County Superior Court to perpetuate the testimony of the Ecology

       employees who attended the June meeting. The Board argued it expected to be a party in

       two different cognizable lawsuits, one based on Ecology’s presumed future denial of the

       Tiegs change/transfer application and another based on Ecology’s published document,

       which the Board claimed constituted illegal rulemaking. The Board did not argue or

       proffer any specific information suggesting the Ecology employees would not be

       available for testimony in any future litigation.

                                                     2
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       Nos. 38825-5-III; 38874-3-III
       In re Benton County Water Conservancy Bd.

              The superior court held a hearing on the petitions and considered argument from

       counsel. The Board’s attorney emphasized that nine months had passed since the June

       meeting and “[m]emories [were] fading.” Rep. of Proc. (RP) (Mar. 4, 2022) at 10. The

       Board also relied heavily on In re Fitzgerald, 16 Fed R. Serv. 2d 1052, 1972 WL 123064

       (D.D.C. 1972), asserting that the federal district court in that case granted a petition to

       perpetuate testimony in order to gather information for the record during an

       administrative proceeding.

              The superior court judge here ruled in favor of the Board, commenting:

              I think what the board is asking for makes sense because—first of all,
              I don’t care how old these witnesses are, you never know for sure that
              witnesses are going to be around for future litigation, whether they die,
              whether they move out of state and you can’t get ahold of them.
                      This is clearly going to be litigated one way or the other. These
              parties would be deposed one way or the other. [Ecology’s counsel] seems
              to admit that. And so it makes sense to just go ahead and get it done.
                      And maybe it ultimately makes no difference, but on the other hand
              it does guarantee these witnesses—the testimony of these witnesses will be
              preserved, and also it does at least create the possibility that this case may
              be resolved short of further litigation.

       RP (Mar. 4, 2022) at 22-23.

              The court subsequently entered written orders granting leave for the requested

       depositions. We accepted discretionary review and stayed enforcement of the orders

       pending review.

                                                      3
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       Nos. 38825-5-III; 38874-3-III
       In re Benton County Water Conservancy Bd.

                                                 ANALYSIS

              CR 27 provides superior courts with limited authority to order presuit depositions

       of witnesses. Few Washington cases have interpreted this rule. However, CR 27 parallels

       Fed. R. Civ. P. 27. 1 Thus, we are guided by federal case law in assessing the meaning of

       the rule. See Beal v. City of Seattle, 134 Wn.2d 769, 777, 954 P.2d 237 (1998).

              1
                  Fed. R. Civ. P. 27 provides, in pertinent part:
                  (a) Before an Action Is Filed.
                     (1) Petition. A person who wants to perpetuate testimony about any
                  matter cognizable in a United States court may file a verified petition in
                  the district court for the district where any expected adverse party resides.
                  The petition must ask for an order authorizing the petitioner to depose the
                  named persons in order to perpetuate their testimony. The petition must
                  be titled in the petitioner’s name and must show:
                        (A) that the petitioner expects to be a party to an action cognizable
                     in a United States court but cannot presently bring it or cause it to be
                     brought;
                        (B) the subject matter of the expected action and the petitioner’s
                     interest;
                        (C) the facts that the petitioner wants to establish by the proposed
                     testimony and the reasons to perpetuate it;
                        (D) the names or a description of the persons whom the petitioner
                     expects to be adverse parties and their addresses, so far as known; and
                        (E) the name, address, and expected substance of the testimony of
                     each deponent.
                     ....
                     (3) Order and Examination. If satisfied that perpetuating the
                  testimony may prevent a failure or delay of justice, the court must issue
                  an order that designates or describes the persons whose depositions may
                  be taken, specifies the subject matter of the examinations, and states
                  whether the depositions will be taken orally or by written interrogatories.

                                                       4
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       Nos. 38825-5-III; 38874-3-III
       In re Benton County Water Conservancy Bd.

       Standard of review

              Washington courts have yet to identify the standard of review applicable to CR 27

       decisions. Federal appellate courts consistently review district court rulings on Fed. R.

       Civ. P. 27 petitions for an abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Qin v. Deslongchamps, 31 F.4th

       576, 580-81 (7th Cir. 2022); Shore v. Acands, Inc., 644 F.2d 386, 388 (5th Cir.

       1981); Ash v. Cort, 512 F.2d 909, 912 (3d Cir. 1975). The parties agree this standard

       should apply to our appellate courts. We concur; no other review standard is apt in these

       circumstances. We therefore review the superior court’s decision for abuse of discretion.

              A court abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestly unreasonable,

       or exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons. Mayer v. Sto Indus.,

       Inc., 156 Wn.2d 677, 684, 132 P.3d 115 (2006). A trial court necessarily abuses its

       discretion if it misapplies the law. Wash. State Physicians Ins. Exch. & Ass’n v. Fisons

       Corp., 122 Wn.2d 299, 339, 858 P.2d 1054 (1993). “Reliance upon ‘speculation and

       conjecture’ with disregard of the evidence also constitutes an abuse of discretion.”

       In re Pers. Restraint of Dyer, 164 Wn.2d 274, 286, 189 P.3d 759 (2008) (quoting In re

       Pers. Restraint of Dyer, 157 Wn.2d 358, 369, 139 P.3d 320 (2006)).

                                                    5
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       Nos. 38825-5-III; 38874-3-III
       In re Benton County Water Conservancy Bd.

       CR 27 and the requirement of unavailability

              A preliminary question is whether a petitioner must first show a witness will be

       unavailable in order to secure an order for a presuit deposition under CR 27.

              Under federal law, the answer is undoubtedly “yes.” See Quin, 31 F.4th at 581

       (“Rule 27 provides only for the perpetuation of testimony that is at risk of becoming

       unavailable.”); Ash, 512 F.2d at 911 (“Rule 27 properly applies only in that special

       category of cases where it is necessary to prevent testimony from being lost.”); In re

       Pet. of Allegretti, 229 F.R.D. 93, 96 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (A petitioner “must make an

       objective showing that without a Rule 27 hearing, known testimony would otherwise

       be lost, concealed or destroyed.”); In re Storck, 179 F.R.D. 57, 58 (D. Mass. 1998)

       (“Rule 27 still has as its underlying purpose the preservation of evidence which would

       be unavailable otherwise.”).

              The federal courts derive the unavailability requirement from Fed. R. Civ. P. 27’s

       repeated use of the word “perpetuate.” See, e.g., In re Pet. of Ford, 170 F.R.D. 504, 506-

       07 (M.D. Ala. 1997). To perpetuate is to preserve or make last. WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW

       INT’L DICTIONARY 1685 (1986) (defining “perpetuate” as “preserve from extinction” or

       “cause to last indefinitely”). Thus, the federal courts hold that the rule “is not a substitute

                                                      6
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       Nos. 38825-5-III; 38874-3-III
       In re Benton County Water Conservancy Bd.

       for discovery.” Ash, 512 F.2d at 912. “It is available in special circumstances to preserve

       testimony which could otherwise be lost.” Id.

              Like its federal counterpart, Washington’s CR 27 also makes repeated use of the

       word “perpetuate.” To be able to obtain a presuit deposition, a petitioner must articulate a

       desire to “perpetuate” testimony. CR 27(a)(1). And the superior court may not order a

       presuit deposition unless it “is satisfied that the perpetuation of the testimony may prevent

       a failure or delay of justice.” CR 27(a)(3). Given the similarity to the federal

       rule, secondary source materials in Washington recognize the necessity of showing

       unavailability under CR 27. See 3A Elizabeth A. Turner, WASHINGTON PRACTICE: RULES

       PRACTICE CR 27 cmt. 4 at 766 (7th ed. 2021) (“To obtain an order allowing a deposition

       under CR 27, the moving party must also demonstrate that there is a significant likelihood

       that the deponent will be unavailable for trial.”).

              The similarities between the state and federal rules are compelling. We therefore

       hold that, like its federal counterpart, Washington requires a petitioner seeking a CR 27

       deposition to make a preliminary showing of a risk of unavailability.

              The Board urges us to take a broader view of CR 27, citing to Fitzgerald, an

       unpublished decision from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

                                                      7
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       Nos. 38825-5-III; 38874-3-III
       In re Benton County Water Conservancy Bd.

       Fitzgerald has not been widely cited and is of questionable value. Regardless of

       Fitzgerald’s persuasive authority, it is dissimilar to the case here.

              In Fitzgerald, the petitioner sought depositions for an anticipated suit for judicial

       review of a decision by the United States Civil Service Commission. The administrative

       procedures governing the civil service decision did not allow for compulsory process of

       witnesses. The district court judge reasoned that this was an unusual circumstance,

       warranting the court to employ its “equity powers” to “order a deposition.” Fitzgerald,

       1972 WL 123064 at *1. Here, the Board makes no claim that it will become a part of

       proceedings that do not allow for depositions or compulsory process. Fitzgerald is

       therefore distinguishable and unpersuasive.

       The Board has not shown unavailability

              A witness who is at risk of unavailability is typically one who “is aged or seriously

       ill, might flee, or who may become unavailable by reason of relocation or other

       geographic constraints before a suit can be filed.” Quin, 31 F.4th at 581. The Board

       has neither argued, nor demonstrated, that any such circumstances are at issue here.

       There is no evidence any of the Ecology witnesses pose a specific risk of unavailability.

       The record is silent as to their age, health, and future life plans. Thus, the Board has not

       met its burden of establishing a need to perpetuate witness testimony under CR 27.

                                                      8
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       Nos. 38825-5-III; 38874-3-III
       In re Benton County Water Conservancy Bd.

              In ruling in the Board’s favor, the trial court theorized that Ecology’s witnesses

       might not be available because they could die or move away from the area. But these

       concerns amount to nothing more than speculation and conjecture. The general

       observation alone that a witness might not be available for trial (a truism for all mortal

       witnesses) is insufficient to justify a perpetuation deposition under CR 27. Penn Mut.

       Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 68 F.3d 1371, 1375 (D.C. Cir. 1995). Without specific

       facts supporting a finding of unavailability, the superior court lacked discretion to order

       CR 27 depositions.

                                             CONCLUSION

              CR 27 does not authorize presuit depositions as a matter of course. The Board

       has not established a risk that the Ecology witnesses will not be available for testimony

       at a future trial. The orders authorizing CR 27 depositions are therefore reversed.

                                                  Pennell, J.

       WE CONCUR:

       Lawrence-Berrey, A.C.J.                    Siddoway, J.

                                                     9