1 HON.

JANET HELSON

8 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

IN AND FOR KING COUNTY AT KENT
9

10 CCD BLACK DIAMOND PARTNERS LLC, a Cause No. 16-2-29091-4 KNT

Delaware Limited Liability Company,
NON-PARTY RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS
11
Plaintiff, MOTION TO COMPEL AND CROSS-
12
v. MOTION TO MODIFY
13
CITY OF BLACK DIAMOND and BLACK Noted for Hearing: August 3, 2017
14 DIAMOND CITY COUNCIL, a Public Agency, Without Oral Argument
and ERIKA MORGAN, PAT PEPPER AND
15 BRIAN WEBER, Black Diamond City Council
Members,
16
Defendants.
17

18 I. RELIEF REQUESTED
19 Kristen Bryant, an individual who is not a party to this lawsuit, requests that the Court
20 deny Plaintiffs motion to compel production of documents. Alternatively, Ms. Bryant requests
21 that this Court modify the subpoena to limit required document production as described herein.
22 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
23 Ms. Bryant is a private citizen exercising her right to engage in public discourse with both
24 other citizens and her elected officials. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution
25 provides: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
26 the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the

27

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL LUHN LAW PLLC

AND CROSS-MOTION TO MODIFY Page 1 4500 9th Ave NE, Suite 300
Cause No. 16-2-29091-4 KNT
Seattle, WA 98105
Tel: (206) 569-0071 Fax: (206) 569-0072
1 people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. U.S.

2 CONST. AMEND. I.

3 Ms. Bryant grew up in the City of Black Diamond, Washington, and her parents still reside

4 there. Declaration of Kristin Bryant, 3. She visits Black Diamond frequently and cares deeply

5 about preserving the quality of life enjoyed by its residents, including its peaceful, natural setting,

6 and avoiding the blights of urban sprawl such as traffic congestion and higher taxes. Id. This led

7 to her involvement in actions taken by the City, the City Council, and the Mayor of Black

8 Diamond. Id. Ms. Bryants involvement in city government included supporting candidates to the

9 City Council who shared her values and goals for a livable city. Id. She also attends meetings of

10 the City Council and its working groups, and she directly lobbies members of the City Council.

11 Id.

12 Plaintiff incorrectly asserts that Ms. Bryants relationship with Councilmembers Erika

13 Morgan, Pat Pepper and Brian Weber (Defendant Councilmembers) is solely based on the

14 events at issue in this lawsuit and the illegal actions at issue in this lawsuit. In fact, Ms. Bryant

15 became acquainted with and then became friends with Defendant Councilmembers and dozens

16 of other activists and concerned citizens in grassroots meetings and events held to discuss the

17 impact of development on the City of Black Diamond many years ago, prior to any of them

18 expressing a desire to run for public office. Bryant Decl., 4.

19 As this brief will begin to explain, Ms. Bryant feels concerned that the request to appear

20 at a deposition is an attempt to cast her public participation in a negative light, but she did not

21 object to appearing at a deposition. Bryant Decl., 5. Ms. Bryant also offered a compromise to

22 Plaintiffs counsel regarding documents. The entire objection states:

23 I was served with a subpoena to appear at a deposition on August 17, 2017,

and to produce documents at that time. I will comply with the subpoena as
24 far as my attendance is required, but I object to production of the
documents you have requested as creating an undue burden and infringing
25 on my rights as a citizen. Attachment A to the subpoena requests
documents showing communication between me and other private
26 citizens, documents subject to attorney-client privilege, and documents
that are uniquely personal to me.
27

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL LUHN LAW PLLC

AND CROSS-MOTION TO MODIFY Page 2 4500 9th Ave NE, Suite 300
Cause No. 16-2-29091-4 KNT
Seattle, WA 98105
Tel: (206) 569-0071 Fax: (206) 569-0072
 Additionally, the subpoena includes requests for information not related to
1 this dispute. Accordingly, I object and will not be producing any documents
without a court order.
2
Finally, the subpoena does not comply with RCW 5.56.010 in that I did not
3 receive a witness fee or mileage. I trust this will be remedied prior to the
scheduled deposition, or I will not appear. If you try to obtain an order to
4 compel production of any documents, I will ask the court to limit your
request to documents that show that I met with three or more council
5 members in the same place at the same time and discussed city business.
If you are willing to revise Attachment A to limit your requests to
6 documents that meet these conditions, I will comply.

7 Bryant Decl., 6. At no time did she refuse to appear at the deposition, but only asked

8 Plaintiff to limit their document requests. Id.

9 Ms. Bryant is a lay person who is volunteering as an activist for a cause she believes in;

10 she is not a lawyer familiar with the subpoena process. When her personal research revealed she

11 had a reasonable grounds to object to Plaintiffs subpoena, the time allowed by the court rules

12 was soon due to expire. There was no intention to delay any process. Id. Ms. Bryants objections,

13 while perhaps not exhaustive, certainly gave Plaintiff notice of the substance of her objections.

14 Id. Ms. Bryant has a home and family that she takes care of and is self-employed as a software

15 consultant. Time to review this subpoena and related issues has already resulted in loss of time

16 for her work and loss of income. Bryant Decl., 7. She estimates that it would take her 40 hours

17 to collect, review, and consider any responsive records. Bryant Decl., 8. Even without doing so,

18 if limited as she has requested to documents evidencing that she met with three or more Council

19 members at the same time and at the same place and discussed city business, without even

20 looking she can unequivocally state that she possesses no such documents. Id.

21 Further, Ms. Bryants objections reflected her concern that her good work is being

22 mischaracterized by a corporation doing land development in her home town. Ms. Bryants

23 volunteer efforts have had a positive effect over the years. Bryant Decl., 9. Her involvement and

24 that of other members of the public since 2010 has affected Plaintiffs land development plans.

25 Public participation and expert testimony regarding Plaintiffs projects showed that the

26 development was not always following all applicable regulations. Id. Citizen involvement in Black

27 Diamond has led to Hearing Examiner rulings that demonstrate this (see, e.g.,

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL LUHN LAW PLLC

AND CROSS-MOTION TO MODIFY Page 3 4500 9th Ave NE, Suite 300
Cause No. 16-2-29091-4 KNT
Seattle, WA 98105
Tel: (206) 569-0071 Fax: (206) 569-0072
1 http://www.ci.blackdiamond.wa.us/Depts/CommDev/planning/HearingExaminerDecisionPhase

2 1AThevillages.pdf

3 and

4 http://www.ci.blackdiamond.wa.us/Depts/CommDev/planning/The%20Villages%20Preliminary

5 %20Plat%20Phase%202%20Plat%20C_112514/The%20Villages%20PP2C%20Notice%20of%20D

6 ecision.pdf). Id.

7 Further, as Ms. Bryant has stated during public comment at council meetings, the

8 negative accusations directed at those who lobby council members or do homework to express

9 opposition to certain government proposals or land development issues has a chilling effect on

10 public participation. Bryant Decl., 10. These accusations do not deter her from working on the

11 issues, but she is concerned that it is affecting others. Id. Ms. Bryants comments appear to have

12 been given more validity as Plaintiffs subpoena suggests that Ms. Bryants exercise of her

13 fundamental rights to participate in government, engage with elected officials, and speak freely

14 on matters of public importance as somehow inappropriate.

15 This lawsuit alleges no claims against Ms. Bryant. The lawsuit does allege that

16 Councilmembers Erika Morgan, Pat Pepper and Brian Weber (Defendant Councilmembers)

17 violated the Washington Open Public Meetings Act, RCW 42.30, et seq., (the OPMA). In a proper

18 application of CR 26 to parties in litigation, plaintiffs counsel has already obtained production

19 of all communications between the Defendant Councilmembers and Ms. Bryant that are

20 requested by the subpoena to Ms. Bryant (Requests #1-6). Plaintiffs subpoena further demands

21 documentation of any invoices paid for the benefit of the Defendant Councilmembers or for any

22 payments she has received from the Defendant Councilmembers (Requests #9-10). These last

23 requests are easily disposed of because there are no documents subject to Requests #9-10.

24 Bryant Decl., 11.

25 Plaintiffs remaining demands for document production include requests for Ms. Bryants

26 notes taken during City Council meetings (Request #7) and notes she took during any

27

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL LUHN LAW PLLC

AND CROSS-MOTION TO MODIFY Page 4 4500 9th Ave NE, Suite 300
Cause No. 16-2-29091-4 KNT
Seattle, WA 98105
Tel: (206) 569-0071 Fax: (206) 569-0072
1 interactions or communications with [Defendant Councilmembers] and/or Brian Derdowski 1 at

2 any time from 11/2015 to the present (Request #8). Bryant Decl., 12. Ms. Bryant objected to

3 the production of her personal notes and records as an impingement on her right to privacy in

4 her own impressions, writings and thoughts. If Plaintiff is allowed to invade Ms. Bryants personal

5 writings in this way, it would send the message that anyone who dared to participate by bringing

6 valuable, detailed research to a majority of the Council in this way would subject themselves to

7 the prospect of their personal notes, comments, communications and documents being hailed

8 into legal proceedings.

9 Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Bryant and Mr. Derdowski acted as go-betweens or messengers

10 or facilitators so illegal secret meetings and action could occur, and then be translated and

11 conveyed in Daisy Chain fashion to another [Defendant Councilmember] to avoid them all three

12 being in the same room or on the same communication. These allegations implicitly admit that

13 Plaintiff has no evidence that all three Defendant Councilmembers were in the same room or

14 on the same communication in violation of the OPMA. Plaintiff has also not identified specific

15 Council votes across the long timeframe for the subpoenaed documents to demonstrate council

16 action that was the outcome of these alleged daisy-chain meetings (Plaintiff also does not clearly

17 explain how this would constitute an OPMA violation).

18 Ms. Bryant is not opposed to advancing justice by making herself available for a

19 deposition. 2 Bryant Decl., 13. What she has objected to is Plaintiffs fishing expedition

20 searching for something that the voting record of Council, documents already produced, and

21 statements made by Council do not support: evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the

22 Defendant Councilmembers. If documents already produced by the City and Defendant

23 Councilmembers cannot establish any OPMA violations, Plaintiff should be required to articulate

24

25
1
Mr. Derdowski is also a private individual and not a party to this lawsuit.
26 2
Ultimately, Ms. Bryant has not objected to or expressed any reluctance in appearing for the
deposition on August 17th. Yet Plaintiffs motion both fails to mention this and actually informs the
27 court that she has refused.

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL LUHN LAW PLLC

AND CROSS-MOTION TO MODIFY Page 5 4500 9th Ave NE, Suite 300
Cause No. 16-2-29091-4 KNT
Seattle, WA 98105
Tel: (206) 569-0071 Fax: (206) 569-0072
1 why there is any evidence beyond mere speculation that some daisy chain record will be found

2 in Ms. Bryants records. Otherwise, the request is too burdensome.

3 There is a substantial burden imposed by the time it would require for her to go through

4 more than 21 months of records to determine what, if anything, is responsive to Plaintiffs

5 requests. Ms. Bryant, like several other people involved in Black Diamond politics, goes through

6 almost every item of City business and conducts research on it. To respond to this subpoena,

7 Ms. Bryant would have to first locate all the possible documents, read them, and then try to recall

8 whether she discussed or shared her thoughts with any of the Defendant Councilmembers.

9 Bryant Decl., 13. None of the documents will indicate an Open Meetings Act violation, if it is

10 even possible that Ms. Bryant could somehow create one. With regard to emails, due to mailbox

11 storage size limits, Ms. Bryants email retention does not go back in time as far as requested.

12 The effect of an overly broad subpoena going forwardincluding personal notes and

13 communication between private parties at substantial time and expense to a volunteer working

14 to effect changeresembles a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP suits) (see,

15 RCW 4.24.525). The harm sought to be cured by laws prohibiting SLAPP suits is to protect

16 individuals who make good faith reports to governmental bodies. Putting Ms. Bryant through

17 significant time and expense and revealing her personal documents publicly will have the effect

18 of reducing citizen participation and input in Black Diamond, and could be used an example to

19 deter participation elsewhere.

20 Ms. Bryant has been singled out for public criticism during public meetings by the mayor

21 and some City Council members. Bryant Decl., 14. The issue is not simply political

22 disagreements, but the fact that Ms. Bryant works at a level of detail with regard to the issues

23 that most citizens do not have time to reach. Id. Sustained, well-informed, detailed participation

24 has been criticized and looked upon with suspicion. Id. Positive action such as building

25 relationships with elected officials and bringing them detailed, relevant, valuable information is

26 being discouraged. Id. The actual problem may be the positions supported by Ms. Bryant to

27 which the Plaintiff and others are opposed. Id.

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL LUHN LAW PLLC

AND CROSS-MOTION TO MODIFY Page 6 4500 9th Ave NE, Suite 300
Cause No. 16-2-29091-4 KNT
Seattle, WA 98105
Tel: (206) 569-0071 Fax: (206) 569-0072
1 III. STATEMENT OF ISSUES

2 1. Should a party to litigation be allowed to compel a non-party to produce documents

3 that have already been produced by parties to the lawsuit, and/or that are more

4 readily available from the other parties to the litigation?

5 2. Should a non-party be compelled to disclose that persons personal observations,

6 recorded recollections, and impressions, particularly when they do not have any

7 connection with the issues presented by the complaint?

8 3. Should the subpoena be revised to request production of only documents that would

9 demonstrate a violationor even an attempted violationof the OPMA?

10 4. Should Ms. Bryant be entitled to recover her attorneys fees pursuant to CR 45?

11 IV. EVIDENCE RELIED UPON

12 This response in opposition to Plaintiffs motion relies upon the Declaration of Kristin

13 Bryant, the Declaration of Gail M. Luhn with exhibits thereto, and facts and authority cited herein.

14 V. AUTHORITY

15 A. A party seeking documents from a non-party pursuant to a subpoena

is not permitted to require production of duplicative documents that
16 are more readily availableor have already been obtainedfrom
other sources.
17
Plaintiff has somehow taken Ms. Bryants exercise of her fundamental rights to participate
18
in government, engage with elected officials, and speak freely on matters of public importance
19
as evidence of collusion. Ms. Bryant has objected to the production of her personal notes and
20
records as an impingement on her right to privacy in her own impressions, writings and thoughts.
21
If these had been shared with Defendant Councilmembers it is our belief that Plaintiff has already
22
obtained or should have obtained such copies through discovery.
23
Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Bryant is withholding discovery. Discovery is a process
24
engaged in by parties to litigation. CR 26(a). A subpoena pursuant to CR 45 is a process available
25
to parties to obtain relevant information from non-parties. Accordingly, Ms. Bryant is not
26

27

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL LUHN LAW PLLC

AND CROSS-MOTION TO MODIFY Page 7 4500 9th Ave NE, Suite 300
Cause No. 16-2-29091-4 KNT
Seattle, WA 98105
Tel: (206) 569-0071 Fax: (206) 569-0072
1 withhold[ing] discovery. Civil Rule 26 nonetheless empowers the court to impose limitations

2 on a partys discovery efforts. Specifically, the rule states:

3 CR 26(b)(1) . . . The frequency or extent of use of the discovery methods set

forth in section (a) shall be limited by the court if it determines that:
4
(A) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or is
5 obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less
burdensome, or less expensive;
6
(B) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by discovery
7 in the action to obtain the information sought; or

8
(C) the discovery is unduly burdensome or expensive, taking into
9 account the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, limitations on
the parties resources, and the importance of the issues at stake in the
10 litigation.

11 Ms. Bryant is not a party to this lawsuit and yet demands are being placed upon her to

12 produce documents that we believe Plaintiffs counsel has already obtained. Presumably, prior

13 to seeking documents from Ms. Bryant, Plaintiffs counsel made Requests for Production to the

14 City and Defendant Councilmembers for documents responsive to those sought by subpoena

15 from Ms. Bryant (specifically, any documents responsive to Requests #1-6). If so, any documents

16 in Ms. Bryants possession are duplicative. If not, CR 26(b)(1)(B) permits the court to deny

17 Plaintiffs motion to compel because the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by

18 discovery in the action to obtain the information sought. There is also some other source for

19 obtaining the documents that is more convenient for the parties in this case, and far less

20 burdensome for Ms. Bryant, a non-party, and that is from the defendants.

21 A court is also empowered to enter an order protecting a person from whom discovery

22 is sought by making any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from

23 annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. CR 26(c). Ms. Bryant

24 seeks relief from Plaintiffs subpoena by way of an order providing that the documents sought

25 by Plaintiff not be produced. As discussed, the documents are duplicative, personal, and/or non-

26 existent. Further, by infringing on her right to petition the government, the requests are

27 oppressive.

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL LUHN LAW PLLC

AND CROSS-MOTION TO MODIFY Page 8 4500 9th Ave NE, Suite 300
Cause No. 16-2-29091-4 KNT
Seattle, WA 98105
Tel: (206) 569-0071 Fax: (206) 569-0072
 B. The documents requested by Plaintiff contain Ms. Bryants personal
1 observations, recorded recollections, and personal finances, the
production of which serves no purpose other than to harass,
2 embarrass and annoy her and to chill the exercise of fundamental
rights.
3
Plaintiff requests documents showing all communications Ms. Bryant had with
4
Defendant Councilmembers, copies of documents received from Defendant Councilmembers in
5
their capacity as such, copies of letters or emails that she drafted for or helped Defendant
6
Councilmembers to draft, and copies of proposed legislation, agendas, and scripts that she
7
drafted or helped to draft. Subpoena to Kristin Bryant, Attachment A. The subpoena also
8
demands production of her notes taken by you during any meeting of the Black Diamond City
9
Council or any of its committees and [a]ll notes taken by you during any interactions or
10
communications with [Defendant Councilmembers] and/or Brian Derdowski. Id.
11
As to the first category of documents, objection was made because the OPMA contains
12
no prohibitions against a private citizen and a public official having, giving, or receiving
13
communications between them. To violate the OPMA, the governing body of a public agency
14
must meet and take action.
15
As used in this chapter unless the context indicates otherwise:
16
(1) "Public agency" means:
17
...
18
(b) Any county, city, school district, special purpose district, or other
19 municipal corporation or political subdivision of the state of Washington;

20 ...

21 (2) "Governing body" means the multimember board, commission,

committee, council, or other policy or rule-making body of a public agency,
22 or any committee thereof when the committee acts on behalf of the
governing body, conducts hearings, or takes testimony or public comment.
23
(3) "Action" means the transaction of the official business of a public agency
24 by a governing body including but not limited to receipt of public
testimony, deliberations, discussions, considerations, reviews, evaluations,
25 and final actions. "Final action" means a collective positive or negative
decision, or an actual vote by a majority of the members of a governing
26 body when sitting as a body or entity, upon a motion, proposal, resolution,
order, or ordinance.
27

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL LUHN LAW PLLC

AND CROSS-MOTION TO MODIFY Page 9 4500 9th Ave NE, Suite 300
Cause No. 16-2-29091-4 KNT
Seattle, WA 98105
Tel: (206) 569-0071 Fax: (206) 569-0072
 (4) "Meeting" means meetings at which action is taken.
1
In this case, there was no meeting of the governing body of a public agency at
2
which action or final action was taken within the meaning of the OPMA. See, Citizens Alliance
3
for Property Rights Legal Fund v. San Juan County, 184 Wn.2d 429 (2015) (The OPMA applies
4
only to meetings of "[g]overning bod[ies]" that include a majority of council members and the
5
attendees "acted on behalf of" the Council and thus constituted a "governing body" which takes
6
action or final action.).
7
If, arguendo, Ms. Bryant sent email, drafted proposed legislation, scripts or agendas and
8
circulated those to all the Defendant Councilmembers, it would establish nothing other than the
9
fact that she wanted to communicate her ideas to the City, and she selected as her vehicle the
10
three councilmembers who shared her global perspective on growth and development in Black
11
Diamond. Even if she shared the same information with all threeor all fivecouncilmembers,
12
that does not guarantee that any of them will vote on any proposed ordinance, resolution or
13
otherwise take action consistent with her expressed views. If they do take action consistent
14
with her expressed views, that simply means she was successful in her lobbying efforts, or it may
15
mean nothing at all and each member voted his/her conscience. The only relevant inquiry here
16
is whether the Defendant Councilmembers met or communicated amongst themselves to
17
discuss and decide City business outside the confines of a public meeting.
18
Requiring Ms. Bryant to produce records that have already (or should have been)
19
obtained from the City or Defendant Councilmembers would impose a burden on her and would
20
add nothing to show that an OPMA violation occurred. It would also have a chilling effect on
21
public participation. Ms. Bryant and others have experienced that Black Diamond Council
22
meetings have become a forum where citizens voicing opposition to proposed actions are
23
subjected to harsh criticism from government officials. Bryant Decl., 14. To then compel a
24
private citizen who merely attends a public meeting and takes notes to produce those notes and
25
disclose the thoughts and impressions at a deposition will almost certainly dissuade others from
26
engaging in similar public participation.
27

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL LUHN LAW PLLC

AND CROSS-MOTION TO MODIFY Page 10 4500 9th Ave NE, Suite 300
Cause No. 16-2-29091-4 KNT
Seattle, WA 98105
Tel: (206) 569-0071 Fax: (206) 569-0072
1 The above analysis is equally applicable to any communications Ms. Bryant had with Mr.

2 Derdowskihimself a private citizen. It is by engaging in political discourse with our friends,

3 neighbors and other like-minded (and not like-minded) citizens that we learn, process, and

4 effect change in our society. The content of any communications between Ms. Bryant and Mr.

5 Derdowskieven if one or two of the Defendant Councilmembers were included in the

6 exchangeis not subject to public disclosure. It is private. If a quorum of the City Council were

7 present, if official business was discussed, and if action was taken, then it is relevant. Which is

8 why Ms. Bryants request to limit the scope of the subpoena is appropriate.

9 C. If Plaintiffs motion is not denied, the subpoena should be revised.

10 As discussed above, to establish an OPMA violation the Plaintiff must prove that a

11 quorum of the Black Diamond City Council (a quorum of the five-person council would be

12 established if all three of the Defendant Councilmembers were present) held a meeting at which

13 action or final action was taken. It would, therefore, seem quite sufficient for Plaintiff to

14 request copies of communications, notes or other recordings of meetings between Ms. Bryant

15 and three or more Councilmembers in the same place at the same time to discuss the official

16 business of the City of Black Diamond and that action was taken. So limited, Ms. Bryant would

17 have no documents to produce. Which means this motion was unnecessary.

18 If Ms. Bryant is nonetheless required to produce documents without revising the scope

19 of the subpoena, she estimates that it will require 40 hours to collect, review, consider whether

20 it was shared with anyone, and mark it for production if it was. Bryant Decl., 8. Given that, she

21 would also request that any document production not be required until August 11, 2017, which

22 is still seven (7) days prior to her deposition on August 17th.

23 D. Plaintiff should reimburse Ms. Bryants attorneys fees for responding

to this motion or, alternatively, pay her replacement wages for time
24 expended to respond to the subpoena.

25 The court rules recognize that a party or attorney that issues a subpoena is required to

26 avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person to whom the subpoena is directed:

27 (c) Protection of Persons Subject to Subpoenas.

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL LUHN LAW PLLC

AND CROSS-MOTION TO MODIFY Page 11 4500 9th Ave NE, Suite 300
Cause No. 16-2-29091-4 KNT
Seattle, WA 98105
Tel: (206) 569-0071 Fax: (206) 569-0072
1 (1) A party or an attorney responsible for the issuance and service of a
subpoena shall take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or
2 expense on a person subject to that subpoena. The court shall enforce this
duty and impose upon the party or attorney in breach of this duty an
3 appropriate sanction, which may include, but is not limited to, lost earnings
and a reasonable attorneys fee.
4
CR 45(c)(1). Plaintiffs motion to compel asks the court to order production of records ten days
5
in advance of her scheduled deposition and to compel her attendance at a deposition on August
6
17, 2017. This is misleading because Ms. Bryant has already agreed to appear at the deposition
7
other than to insist that the witness fee and mileage be paid. Yet Plaintiffs motion implies that
8
she must be ordered by the Court to attend. The scope of Plaintiffs motion should have been
9
limited to the issue of document production and no order to compel her attendance at a
10
deposition should be issued, since this is not a matter in controversy.
11
Plaintiffs counsel also failed to inform the court that Ms. Bryant had requested a limit to
12
the scope of production rather than refusing entirely to produce any documents. In that regard,
13
after Ms. Bryant objected to Plaintiffs subpoena for records, Plaintiffs counsel responded to Ms.
14
Bryants concerns by email, but did not respond to her request to limit the scope of the
15
subpoena or to her concerns about her privacy of documents used solely for her own purposes.
16
Luhn Decl., Exh. 1. In short, Plaintiffs motion would not have been necessary if it had made a
17
good faith effort to address Ms. Bryants legitimate concerns.
18
Ms. Bryant was forced to hire legal counsel to represent her and she now asks this court
19
to require Plaintiff to reimburse her legal fees in the amount of $2,280 and costs of $22.49, for
20
a total of $2,302.49. Bryant Decl., 15; Luhn Decl., 4. Alternatively, if she is required to review
21
all documents in her possession to determine if there are responsive documents, Ms. Bryant
22
asks the Court to order Plaintiff to pay her lost earnings at the rate of $110 per hour (her lowest
23
consultant rate) for 40 hours she anticipates having to devote to producing records, or $4,400.
24
VI. CONCLUSION
25
For the reasons discussed above, Ms. Bryant requests an order denying Plaintiffs motion
26
to compel her attendance at a deposition, to modify the subpoena to limit the scope of
27

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL LUHN LAW PLLC

AND CROSS-MOTION TO MODIFY Page 12 4500 9th Ave NE, Suite 300
Cause No. 16-2-29091-4 KNT
Seattle, WA 98105
Tel: (206) 569-0071 Fax: (206) 569-0072
1 documents requested, to order that any responsive documents be produced to Plaintiffs

2 counsel no later than August 11, 2017, and to order Plaintiff to reimburse Ms. Bryants attorneys

3 fees or, alternatively, to pay her 40 hours of wages to conduct review and production of the

4 limited documents.

5 I certify that this memorandum contains 4,187 words, including footnotes, in compliance

6 with the Local Civil Rules.

7 Respectfully submitted this Tuesday, August 01, 2017.

8 LUHN LAW, PLLC

9
By: s/ Gail M. Luhn
10 GAIL M. LUHN, WSBA #27104
Attorney for Kristin Bryant
11

12
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
13
The undersigned declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
Washington that on this day she served a copy of the document to which this
declaration is attached, a copy of the Declaration of Kristen Bryant in Support of
14
Response/Cross-Motion, a copy of the Declaration of Gail M. Luhn, a copy of Ms.
15
Luhns Notice of Limited Appearance, and a copy of Ms. Bryants Proposed Order
in the manner noted below on the following counsel of record:
16
Michele Earl-Hubbard, WSBA #26454
17 Allied Law Group
PO Box 33744
18 Seattle, WA 98133
Attorney for Plaintiff
19
Jeff Taraday, WSBA #28182
Lighthouse Law Group PLLC
1100 Dexter Ave. #100
20
Seattle, WA 98019
21 Attorney for Defendants E. Morgan,
P. Pepper, and B. Weber
22
Shannon Ragonesi, WSBA #31951
23 Derek Chen, WBA #49723
Keating Bucklin & McCormack, Inc., P.S.
24 800 Fifth Ave. Ste. 4141
Seattle, WA 98104

Via U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid

25
Via Email/Electronic Service
26
Signed at Seattle, Washington this Tuesday, August 01, 2017.
27

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL LUHN LAW PLLC

AND CROSS-MOTION TO MODIFY Page 13 4500 9th Ave NE, Suite 300
Cause No. 16-2-29091-4 KNT
Seattle, WA 98105
Tel: (206) 569-0071 Fax: (206) 569-0072
 s/ Gail M. Luhn
1 Gail M. Luhn, WSBA #27104

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL LUHN LAW PLLC

AND CROSS-MOTION TO MODIFY Page 14 4500 9th Ave NE, Suite 300
Cause No. 16-2-29091-4 KNT
Seattle, WA 98105
Tel: (206) 569-0071 Fax: (206) 569-0072