Derdowski's Objection To Motion To Compel

1 Hon. Janet M.
Helson
Responding Party: Non-Party Brian Derdowski
2 Noted for Consideration: August 10, 2017
Without Oral Argument
3
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY

8 CCD BLACK DIAMOND PARTNERS
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability No. 16-2-29091-4 KNT
9 Company,
NON-PARTY RESPONSE TO
10 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
COMPEL PRODUCTION OF
11 v. DOCUMENTS FROM BRIAN
DERDOWSKI PURSUANT TO
12 CITY OF BLACK DIAMOND and SUBPOENA
BLACK DIAMOND CITY COUNCIL, a
13 Public Agency and ERIKA MORGAN,
PAT PEPPER AND BRIAN WEBER,
14 Black Diamond City Council Members,
15 Defendants.
16
I. INTRODUCTION
17
[T]here is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of [the First]
18
Amendment is to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs. First Natl Bank of
19
Boston v. Belloti, 435 U.S. 765, 776-77, 98 S. Ct. 1407, 55 L. Ed. 2d 707 (1978). As the
20
Supreme Court of the United States has emphasized, the right to political association is
21
closely allied to freedom of speech and a right which, like free speech, lies at the
22
foundation of a free society. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 25-26, 96 S. Ct. 612, 46 L. Ed.
23
2d 659 (1976) (superseded by statute on other grounds).
24
The subpoena duces tecum issued by Plaintiff here (the Subpoena) puts non-
25
party Brian Derdowskis First Amendment rights in jeopardy. It seeks a large volume of
26
constitutionally protected information from Mr. Derdowski, but fails to establish the
LAW OFFICES OF
NON-PARTY RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO MCNAUL EBEL NAWROT & HELGREN PLLC
600 University Street, Suite 2700
COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM BRIAN Seattle, Washington 98101-3143
DERDOWSKI PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA Page 1 (206) 467-1816
1
relevance, materiality, or unavailability of such information. The Subpoeana also infringes
2
on Mr. Derdowskis rights under art. I, IV, V, and VII of the Washington Constitution.
3
Moreover, the subpoena violates the Civil Rules and subjects Mr. Derdowski to undue
4
burden and expense. For these reasons, the Court should quash the Subpoena and award
5
Mr. Derdowski the reasonable attorneys fees he has incurred.
6
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
7
Plaintiff CCD Black Diamond Partners LLC (CCD) is a powerful Delaware
8
developer planning to construct housing projects that would quadruple the population of
9
Black Diamond. A political power struggle over the development has ensued. Council
10
members promoting a slow growth approach and opposing CCDs plans garnered large
11
majorities in local elections.
12
This lawsuit arose out of that conflict. It represents a transparent effort by CCD to
13
punish the council members who have dared to question CCDs aggressive agenda. The
14
Complaint is styled as raising claims under the Open Public Meetings Act (OPMA),
15
chapter 42.30 RCW, against the City of Black Diamond, the city council, and three
16
council members (the Individual Defendants). In reality, CCDs claimslike its
17
subpoenas to Mr. Derdowski and non-party Kristen Bryantare intended to exact
18
political retribution against those CCD perceives as its adversaries.
19
CCD contends the Individual Defendants conspired to take official action without
20
following the dictates of the OPMA, which generally requires open public meetings that
21
are properly noticed. CCD filed its complaint in late 2016 and has had ample opportunity
22
to seek discovery from the Individual Defendants.
23
Nevertheless, CCD recently served Mr. Derdowski with the Subpoena, which
24
seeks 10 broad categories of documents.1 Declaration of Avi J. Lipman (Lipman Decl.),
25
26 1
Plaintiff claims that Mr. Derdowski refused to answer the door when process servers
appeared and equates this with a lack of compliance with a Subpoena. Motion to Compel at 9.
LAW OFFICES OF
1
Ex. A. Among other things, the Subpoena requests all communications between Mr.
2
Derdowski and the Individual Defendants, Kristen Bryant, or their attorneys; all
3
documents provided by the Individual Defendants; all letters or emails Mr. Derdowski has
4
drafted for, helped draft for, or drafted for the benefit of the Individual Defendants;
5
agendas Mr. Derdowski has drafted; meeting notes; and notes taken during any
6
interactions or communications with the Individual Defendants or Kristen Bryant. The
7
Subpoena further seeks to take Mr. Derdowskis deposition.
8
Mr. Derdowskis association with the Individual Defendants is deeply intertwined
9
with his political and associational activity. Mr. Derdowski volunteers with various
10
community groups, citizen activists, and elected officials throughout Washington State,
11
providing pro bono land use, public policy, and public relations research and consulting,
12
political recruitment and campaigning, and public policy development. Derdowski Decl.,
13
2. He is presently involved in several political campaigns in Black Diamond. Id. at 3.
14
The Subpoena, if enforced, would require the disclosure of core political, petitioning,
15
associational, and expressive activity by Mr. Derdowski and others. Id. at 4.
16
Mr. Derdowski objected to the Subpoena on August 1, 2017. Lipman Decl., Ex. B.
17
That same evening, very shortly after being retained, undersigned counsel for Mr.
18
Derdowski conferred with Plaintiffs counsel about the Subpoena and sought more time to
19
negotiate a potential resolution. Lipman Decl., Ex. C. Nevertheless, on August 2, 2017,
20
CCD filed a motion to compel.
21
22
23
24
25
26 However, Mr. Derdowski could not have failed to comply with a subpoena that had not yet been
served. The burden is upon Plaintiff to properly serve the Subpoena.
LAW OFFICES OF
1
III. STATEMENT OF ISSUES
2
Should the Court deny Plaintiffs motion to compel and quash Plaintiffs subpoena
3
to Mr. Derdowski, a non-party, where the Subpoena infringes on Mr. Derdowskis
4
constitutional rights and is unduly burdensome and oppressive; and is Mr. Derdowski
5
entitled to an award of his reasonable attorneys fees?
6
IV. EVIDENCE RELIED UPON
7
This motion is based upon the papers and pleadings on file in this action, the
8
Declaration of Avi J. Lipman with Exhibits A-C attached thereto, and the Declaration of
9
Brian Derdowski.
10
V. AUTHORITY
11
A. Legal Standard
12
Under CR 45, a court shall quash or modify a subpoena if it requires disclosure
13
of privileged or other protected matter and no exception or waiver applies or subjects a
14
person to undue burden. CR 45(c)(3)(A)(iii)-(iv). On a showing of good cause, a court
15
may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person
16
from . . . oppression, or undue burden or expense, including ordering that the discovery
17
not be had. CR 26(c).
18 B. The Subpoena Impermissibly Infringes on Mr. Derdowskis Constitutional
Rights
19
1. First Amendment: Plaintiff Cannot Meet Its Burden Under Snedigar
20
It is well-established that the First Amendment protects the right to free speech and
21
political association. See Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 622, 104 S. Ct. 3244, 82
22
L. Ed. 2d 462 (1984) (An individuals freedom to speak, to worship, and to petition the
23
government for the redress of grievances could not be vigorously protected from
24
interference by the State unless a correlative freedom to engage in group effort toward
25
those ends were not also guaranteed.); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U.S. 51, 56-57, 94 S. Ct.
26
303, 38 L. Ed. 2d 260 (1973) (The freedom to associate with others for the common
LAW OFFICES OF
1
advancement of political beliefs and ideas is . . . protected by the First and Fourteenth
2
Amendments.); Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 591 F.3d 1147, 1152 (9th Cir. 2010) (The
3
freedom to associate with others for the common advancement of political beliefs and
4
ideas lies at the heart of the First Amendment.).
5
Courts evaluate claims that discovery requests implicate a First Amendment
6
privilege using the three-part balancing test articulated in Snedigar v. Hoddersen, 114
7
Wn.2d 153, 158, 786 P.2d 781 (1990). Under this test, the party asserting the privilege
8
must first establish that the requested disclosure infringes on her First Amendment rights.
9
Snedigar, 14 Wn.2d at 158. Once this showing has been made, the burden shifts to the
10
party seeking discovery to establish (1) that the information is relevant and material, and
11
(2) that there are no reasonable alternative sources for the information. Id. If the party
12
seeking discovery meets this burden, the Court then balances the competing interests. Id.
13
a. The Subpoena Would Chill the Exercise of First Amendment
14 Rights
15 If compelled disclosures have a potential chilling effect on the exercise of First
16 Amendment associational, political, or expressive rights, then such rights are infringed.
17 See Right-Price Recreation, LLC v. Connells Prarie Cmty. Council, 105 Wn. App. 813,
18 823, 21 P.3d 1157 (2001). Here, the requested disclosures implicate the First Amendment.
19 They seek, among other things, all communications with individual council members,
20 shared documents, proposed legislation, and notes relating to meetings with council
21 members. Such documents are at the core of the First Amendment. See AFL-CIO v. FEC,
22 333 F.3d 168, 175 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (The Supreme Court has long recognized that
23 compelled disclosure of political affiliations and activities can impose just as substantial a
24 burden on First Amendment rights as can direct regulation.).
25 Not only does the Subpoena seek information intimately related to Mr.
26 Derdowskis political, expressive, and associational rights, but the disclosure would
LAW OFFICES OF
1
impermissibly chill Mr. Derdowskis exercise of these rights. Such disclosure would
2
undoubtedly make him less likely to engage in political activities in the futurea point
3
that is not likely lost on CCD, which apparently perceives the Individual Defendants, Mr.
4
Derdowski, and Ms. Bryant as interfering with its plans to develop housing projects in
5
Black Diamond. Derdowski Decl., 5-6.
6
Indeed, the very nature of the document requests here demonstrates their potential
7
chilling effect. See, e.g., Right-Price, 105 Wn. App. at 824. In Right-Price, a developer
8
sued citizens groups that opposed its proposed residential subdivisions. Id. at 816. Right-
9
Price sought vast discovery, including minutes of meetings held, correspondence sent to
10
public officials or decision makers, and correspondence sent to other non-profits. Id. at
11
817. The Court of Appeals held the First Amendment protected this material from
12
disclosure, explaining that it would be nave not to recognize that disclosure of this
13
information would chill the members First Amendment rights. Id. at 825.
14
Similarly, in Eugster v. City of Spokane, 121 Wn. App. 799, 813, 91 P.3d 117
15
(2004), the court held that a developers subpoena to a non-party mortgage company,
16
which had made campaign contributions to council members opposing a redevelopment
17
project, was properly quashed. The documents sought included documents relating to
18
campaign contributions and all communications with various elected officials. Id. at 809.
19
The court had no difficulty finding a presumed chilling effect. Id.
20
As in Right-Price and Eugster, enforcement of the Subpoena would have a
21
presumed chilling effect. CCD seeksfrom a non-partyall communications involving
22
the Individual Defendants or Kristen Bryant. It also seeks all proposed legislation Mr.
23
Derdowski has helped draftpotentially revealing Mr. Derdowski as an author or
24
contributor to certain legislation and eviscerating his rights to anonymous speech and to
25
petition local government officials. See, e.g., Doe v. 2TheMart.com Inc., 140 F. Supp. 2d
26
1088, 1092 (W.D. Wash. 2001) (A component of the First Amendment is the right to
LAW OFFICES OF
1
speak with anonymity.); see also McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commn, 514 U.S. 334,
2
357, 115 S. Ct. 1511, 131 L. Ed. 2d 426 (1995) (Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny
3
of the majority.).
4
In sum, enforcement of the Subpoena would likely chill Mr. Derdowskis First
5
Amendment activities.2 Thus, Mr. Derdowski has more than met his burden to show
6
some probability that the requested disclosure will infringe upon [his] First Amendment
7
rights. Right-Price, 105 Wn. App. at 822.
8
b. The Information Sought Is Not Relevant or Material
9
Because Mr. Derdowski has established a likelihood that the Subpoena infringes
10
on his First Amendment rights, the burden shifts to CCD to show that the information
11
sought is relevant and material. The relevance inquiry is held to a significantly stricter
12
standard when discovery is sought from a non-party. As the Washington Supreme Court
13
has explained, [w]ith regard to relevancy, the interest in disclosure will be regarded as
14
relatively weak unless the information goes to the heart of the matter, or is crucial to the
15
case of the litigant seeking discovery. Snedigar, 114 Wn.2d at 165. Under this standard, a
16
litigant must specifically describe the information it hopes to obtain and its importance to
17
its case. Id. (citing Black Panther Party v. Smith, 661 F.2d 1243, 1268 (D.C. Cir. 1981)).
18
CCD has failed to meet its burden. It points to three documents in an attempt to
19
establish relevance. First, it points to Exhibit B to the 8/2/2017 Earl-Hubbard Declaration.
20
CCD claims this document is an email from Mr. Derdowksi to the Individual Defendants
21
and Kristen Bryant, noting that he would be having lunch with a former Kirkland
22
Councilman to talk about some of [his] ideas for empowering elected officials without
23
violating the letter and the spirit of the Open Meetings Law and that he would report
24
2
25 Plaintiff incorrectly asserts that Mr. Derdowski has no privacy or First Amendment
interest in communications because those communications are necessarily subject to the States
26 Public Records Act. Mr. Derdowskis communications with individuals on the city council are by
no means necessarily subject to the PRA.
LAW OFFICES OF
1
back. This document fails to establish CCDs claims. The passive receipt of this email
2
does not constitute a meeting under the OPMA. Wood v. Battle Ground Sch. Dist., 107
3
Wn. App. 550, 564, 27 P.3d 1208 (2001) (mere use or passive receipt of email not a
4
meeting). And CCDs claim that it go[es] directly to the knowledge of the Individual
5
Defendants as to their duties under the OPMA is specious. The OPMA itself requires that
6
every member of a governing body of a public agency complete training on the OPMA no
7
later than 90 days after the member takes office; therefore, the Individual Defendants
8
imputed knowledge may be presumed and additional evidence is cumulative at best. See
9
RCW 42.30.205.
10
Next, CCD looks to Exhibit A, which it claims is a text message from Kristen
11
Bryant to the Individual Defendants predicting an OPMA lawsuit. CCD claims without
12
evidence that the message is believed to have included Derdowski and that it shows
13
notice to the Individual Defendants that their actions may be illegal. The claim that this
14
document relates to Mr. Derdowski at all, however, is completely speculative, and hardly
15
provides the specified showing of relevance contemplated by Snedigar. Finally, CCD
16
points to what it disparages as draft minutes of an illegal meeting from March 10, 2016.
17
However, this meeting appears to have been properly noticed and posted to the Citys
18
website. See Notice,
19
http://www.ci.blackdiamond.wa.us/Depts/Clerk/Agendas/2016/Agendas/GovernmentOper
20
ationsandAdministrationCommittee/SpecialMeetingNotice031016.pdf (last visited Aug. 7,
21
2017). Because CCD has failed to show that the information it seeks is relevant and
22
material, the Court should quash the subpoena.
23
c. Plaintiff Has Failed to Show the Evidence Is Otherwise
24 Unavailable
25 With regard to the unavailability of the information, CCD makes a conclusory
26 assertion that Mr. Derdowski is a necessary source[] for records as Individual Defendants
LAW OFFICES OF
1
have not provided them and claim to be unable to do so. This does not meet the exacting
2
standard of establishing that every reasonable alternative source of information has been
3
exhausted. Eugster, 121 Wn. App. at 810. This failure provides an independent basis to
4
quash the Subpoena.
5
2. Washington State Constitution: Privacy, Speech, and Petition Rights
6
The Subpoena should be scrutinized with great care because it impacts Mr.
7
Derdowskis privacy interests and right to petition and speak freely under the Washington
8
State Constitution. Art. I, IV and V grant citizens the right to petition for the common
9
good and to free speech. Art. I, VII provides that no person shall be disturbed in his
10
private affairs . . . without authority of law. Here, Mr. Derdowskis privacy interest is
11
particularly heightened; the Subpoena seeks information about his finances, his personal
12
notes about interactions relating to the political process, and communications exchanged
13
with council members. Plaintiffs motion to compel should be denied on these bases as
14
well.
15
3. The Subpoena Should Be Quashed
16
Here, Mr. Derdowski has met his burden to show a likelihood that his
17
constitutional rights have been infringed. As explained above, CCD has failed to meet its
18
burden to show the relevance and materiality of the information and that it was not
19
reasonably available elsewhere. Therefore, the Court need not balance competing interests
20
and the Subpoena should be quashed. However, even if CCD had met its burden, Mr.
21
Derdowskis claim of privilege is more compelling than CCDs need for disclosure. The
22
Subpoena should be quashed on that basis as well. Right-Price, 105 Wn. App. at 822.
23
C. Mr. Derdowski Is Entitled to a Protective Order Because the Subpoena Is
24 Unduly Burdensome, Duplicative, Seeks Irrelevant Information, and
Infringes on Mr. Derdowskis Constitutional Rights
25
Even if Mr. Derdowskis claim of privilege did not defeat the Subpoena, Mr.
26
Derdowski is still entitled to relief. Under CR 26(c), for good cause shown, the Court
LAW OFFICES OF
1
may fashion an order to protect a person from discovery requests that annoy[],
2
embarrass[], oppress[], or [impose] undue burden or expense, including an order that the
3
discovery not be had.
4
Here, good cause exists to issue a protective order quashing the Subpoena.
5
1. Courts Closely Scrutinize Non-Party Subpoenas
6
Although the Civil Rules allow for liberal discovery from parties to the litigation,
7
the scope of discovery allowed from non-parties like Mr. Derdowski is narrower than
8
that permissible from parties to the action. F.T.C. v. AMG Servs., Inc., 291 F.R.D. 544,
9
553 (D. Nev. 2013). While parties to a law suit must accept its burdens as a natural part
10
of civil litigation, non-parties have a different set of expectations. Accordingly, concern
11
for the unwanted burden thrust upon non-parties is a factor entitled to special weight in
12
evaluating the balance of competing needs. Eugster, 121 Wn. App. at 813; Gonzales v.
13
Google, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 674, 680 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (Underlying the protections of Rule
14
45 is the recognition that the word non-party serves as a constant reminder of the reasons
15
for the limitations that characterize third-party discovery.) (quoting Dart Indus. Co. v.
16
Westwood Chem. Co., 649 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1980)). Under CR 26(c), Mr.
17
Derdowski is entitled to a protective order quashing the Subpoena.
18
2. Good Cause Exists to Issue a Protective Order
19
a. The Subpoena Implicates Important Constitutional Interests
20
The Subpoena should be scrutinized with great care because it impacts Mr.
21
Derdowskis constitutional rights, including his privacy interests and right to petition and
22
speak freely under the Washington State Constitution. See supra Part V.B.2. For example,
23
the Court of Appeals has previously held that the privacy interest of a discovery target is a
24
factor to be considered on a motion for a protective order. T.S. v. Boy Scouts of America,
25
157 Wn.2d 416, 431, 138 P.3d 1053 (2006). As Plaintiffs demand for Mr. Derdowskis
26
LAW OFFICES OF
1
private documents infringes on his rights to political speech, association, and petition, this
2
factor is weighty and tips strongly in favor of a protective order.
3 b. The Information Sought is Unreasonably Cumulative and Is
Obtainable from a Less Burdensome Source
4
Under CR 26(b)(1)(A), the Court may limit the extent of use of discovery where
5
the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative or may be obtained
6
from some other less burdensome source. Here, the discovery sought is unreasonably
7
cumulative and duplicative. CCD has issued virtually identical requests to Kristen Bryant,
8
another non-party to the case. CCD has also sought this same information from the
9
parties. While CCD makes an unsupported allegation that the parties have been unable to
10
produce all the documents, CCD fails to demonstrate reasonable diligence in trying to
11
obtain their production. Moreover, CCD cannot show that deposing the parties is more
12
burdensome than requiring Mr. Derdowski, a non-party, to undertake a laborious search
13
for documents. Because the discovery is unreasonably cumulative and available from a
14
less burdensome source, the Court should issue a protective order.
15
c. The Discovery Is Unduly Burdensome and Expensive
16
Under CR 26(b)(1)(C), discovery may be limited when the discovery is unduly
17
burdensome or expensive. In determining whether discovery poses an undue burden,
18
courts consider the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, limitations on the
19
parties resources, and the importance of the issues at stake in the litigation. CR
20
26(b)(1)(C). Here, the balance of these factors weighs heavily in favor of a protective
21
order.
22
First, the needs of the case for this information is not compelling. CCDs legal
23
theory founders at the outset. It contends that three Individual Defendants created standing
24
committees to review, draft, amend, discuss, and approve resolutions and ordinances for
25
consideration by the Council and that these committees met in violation of the OPMA.
26
Complaint, 51-55. By CCDs own description, however, the standing committees act in
LAW OFFICES OF
1
a purely advisory role. The Washington Supreme Court has held that the OPMA does not
2
extend to committees that do nothing more than deliberate the making of policy or rules.
3
Citizens Alliance for Property Rights Legal Fund v. San Juan County, 184 Wn.2d 428,
4
442, 359 P.3d 753 (2015).
5
CCD also proposes that the Individual Defendantswho constitute a majority of
6
the council memberscommunicated by telephone, email, and through third parties and
7
therefore took action at a meeting under the OPMA. However, this daisy chain
8
theory of a meeting has not been accepted in Washington. See Citizens Alliance, 184
9
Wn.2d at 448 n.5 (We do not reach the issue of whether such a serialized sequence of
10
communications can ever constitute a meeting under OPMA.).3
11
Because the legal theory on which Plaintiff relies is as doubtful as it is novel, it
12
should not survive a dispositive motion. Therefore, the information is not relevant to a
13
legally viable claim. Because CCD seeks information from a non-party that is likely
14
immaterial,4 the needs of the case are de minimis and weigh in favor of a protective
15
orderparticularly in view of the fact that stricter standards for discovery apply to non-
16
parties. See Bio-Vita v. Biopure Corp., 138 F.R.D. 13, 17 (D. Mass. 1991) ([T]he scope
17
of discovery differs significantly between parties and nonparties.); Laxalt v. McClatchy,
18
116 F.R.D. 455, 458 (D. Nev. 1986) (The standards for nonparty discovery. . . require a
19
stronger showing of relevance than for simple party discovery.).
20
The second factor, the amount in controversy, also tips in favor of a protective
21
order. Even if civil penalties were to be imposed under the OPMA, the ultimate amount in
22
23
24 3
By contrast with this daisy chain theory, a meeting can occur via email when the
25 email discussion copies a majority of the governing body. See Wood, 107 Wn. App. at 565-66.
4
Some of the documents sought, such as receipts and invoices, have no relevance to the
26 determination of whether a meeting occurred. Similarly, proposed legislation Mr. Derdowski
helped draft is not relevant to any claim or defense.
LAW OFFICES OF
1
controversy is relatively low. See RCW 42.30.120 ($500 for first violation; $1,000 for
2
subsequent violation).
3
The third factorlimitations on Mr. Derdowskis resourcesweighs strongly in
4
favor of a protective order. Mr. Derdowski is retired. Derdowski Decl., 7. Conducting
5
the discovery at issue would take a great deal of time, as he would need to search a
6
considerable volume of material and assess each document for responsiveness and
7
privilege. Derdowski Decl., 8-12.5 Having undersigned counsel complete this task
8
would impose an additional and substantial burden. Lipman Decl., 5.
9
Even if the issues at stake in the litigation, the fourth factor, may be regarded as
10
important, this factor is greatly outweighed by the remaining factors, particularly in light
11
of Mr. Derdowskis privacy interest under art. I, VII of the Washington Constitution.
12
Therefore, the Court should issue a protective order quashing the subpoena.
13
D. The Court Should Award Mr. Derdowski His Attorneys Fees and Costs
14
The Civil Rules impose a duty on a party or the partys attorney to take
15
reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a non-party. CR
16
45(c)(1). Where, as here, this duty is breached, the rules provide that the Court shall
17
enforce it by imposing a sanction including lost earnings and a reasonable attorneys
18
fee. Id. Under this rule, the Court should award Mr. Derdowski his fees and costs
19
incurred in bringing this issue before the Court. Similarly, the Court should award fees
20
and expenses under CR 37(a)(4) because CCDs position on these motions is not
21
substantially justified. Moreover, no circumstances would render an award unjust.
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
5
26 As explained in Mr. Derdowskis declaration, he and the Individual Defendants retained
attorney Kathy George to advise them during the relevant period.
LAW OFFICES OF
1
VI. CONCLUSION
2
For all the reasons explained above, the Court should deny CCDs motion for a
3
protective order and grant a protective order quashing the subpoena.
4
I certify that this memorandum contains 3,896 words, in compliance with the
5
Local Civil Rules.
6
DATED this 8th day of August, 2017.
7
McNAUL EBEL NAWROT & HELGREN PLLC
8
9 By s/ Avi J. Lipman
Avi J. Lipman, WSBA No. 37661
10 Theresa M. DeMonte, WSBA No. 43994
11 600 University Street, Suite 2700
Seattle, Washington 98101
12 Telephone (206) 467-1816
ALipman@mcnaul.com
13 TDeMonte@mcnaul.com
14 Attorneys for Brian Derdowski
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
LAW OFFICES OF
1
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
2 On August 8, 2017, I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing
3 document upon counsel of record, at the address stated below, via the method of service
4 indicated:
5
Michele Earl-Hubbard, WSBA #26454 Via Messenger
6 Allied Law Group Via U.S. Mail
P.O. Box 33744, Seattle, WA 98133 Via Overnight Delivery
7 (206) 443-0200 Via Facsimile
michele@alliedlawgroup.com Via E-Service & E-Mail
8
Attorneys for Plaintiff
9
10 Shannon Ragonesi, WSBA No. 31951 Via Messenger

Derek Chan, WSBA No. 49723 Via U.S. Mail
11 Keating Bucklin & McCormack, Inc., P.S. Via Overnight Delivery
800 Fifth Ave, Suite 4141
12 Seattle, WA 98104-3175 Via Facsimile
(206) 623-8861 Via E-Service & E-Mail
13 ragonesi@kbmlawyers.com;
dchen@kbmlawyers.com
14 Attorneys for Defendants City of Black Diamond
and Black Diamond City Council
15
Jeff Taraday, WSBA No. 28182 Via Messenger
16 Lighthouse Law Group PLLC Via U.S. Mail
1100 Dexter Ave, #100 Via Overnight Delivery
17 Seattle, WA 98109 Via Facsimile
(206) 273-7440 Via E-Service & E-Mail
18 jeff@lighthouselawgroup.com
Attorney for Defendants Morgan Pepper and
19 Weber
20
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America
21
and the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct.
22
DATED this 8th day of August, 2017, at Seattle, Washington.
23
24 By:
Thao Do, Legal Assistant
25
26
LAW OFFICES OF
0001-AJL gh08c308j5 2017-08-08

Derdowski's Objection To Motion To Compel

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Derdowski's Objection To Motion To Compel

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 Hon. Janet M.

7 SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY

24 burden on First Amendment rights as can direct regulation.).

10 Shannon Ragonesi, WSBA No. 31951 Via Messenger

0001-AJL gh08c308j5 2017-08-08

You might also like