Williams v. Sampson et al

Filing 32

ORDER granting Defendants' 10 Motion to quash subpoena and 24 Motion to stay discovery. Williams's 22 27 Motions to compel are stayed pending the Court's resolution of Defendants' dispositive motions 5 11 . Signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. **4 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Kirk Williams, Prisoner ID: 879031)(PM)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

KIRK WILLIAMS,

10

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. C17-0092-JCC
ORDER

v.

11

CYNTHIA SAMPSON and
SHORELINE POLICE
DEPARTMENT,

12
13
14

Defendants.

15
16

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion to quash subpoena (Dkt. No.

17

10) and motion to stay discovery (Dkt. No. 24). Having thoroughly considered the parties’

18

briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby GRANTS

19

the motions for the reasons explained herein.

20

I.

21

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Kirk Williams alleges that Defendant King County Detective Cynthia Sampson

22

forced him to provide a DNA sample pursuant to a court order that she altered. (Dkt. No. 4 at 2.)

23

Williams argues that this violated the Fourth Amendment; the Fourteenth Amendment; article I,

24

section 7 of the Washington Constitution; and Washington Criminal Rule 4.7. (Id. at 1.)

25

On January 31, 2017, Defendants moved to dismiss on the grounds of statute of

26

limitations and improper service. (Dkt. No. 5.) Defendants further moved for summary

ORDER
PAGE - 1

1

judgment, arguing that Williams’s claims are barred by Heck v. Humphrey1; that Defendant

2

Shoreline Police Department is an entity incapable of suit; and that qualified immunity applies.

3

(Dkt. No. 11.)

4

On February 13, 2017, Williams subpoenaed King County Superior Court Judge Sharon

5

Armstrong for documents relating to “the written request to change the order date of motion for

6

DNA testing who changed the date and I would also want to know was Hon. Sharon Armstrong

7

the neutral and detached magistrate judge.” (Dkt. No. 7 at 2.) On March 17, 2017, Williams

8

moved to compel discovery. (Dkt. No. 22.) Williams has not served Defendants with any

9

discovery requests thus far. (Dkt. No. 24 at 2.)

10

Defendants now seek to quash the subpoena and to stay discovery pending the outcome

11

of the dispositive motions. (Dkt. Nos. 10, 24.)

12

II.

DISCUSSION

13

A.

Motion to Quash

14

Defendants argue that the subpoena should be quashed because (1) it does not comport

15

with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 and (2) it is not the proper method by which to

16

request discovery from an opposing party. (Dkt. No. 10 at 1.)

17

As for Rule 45’s requirements, Defendants note that the subpoena fails to “set out the text

18

of Rule 45(d) and (e)” as required by Rule 45(a)(1)(A)(iv) and does not allow a “reasonable time

19

to comply” as required by Rule 45(d)(3)(A)(i). (Dkt. No. 10 at 2-3.) Williams responds that these

20

are mere technicalities that he can remedy. (Dkt. No. 17 at 2.) He submitted an amended

21

subpoena along with his response. (Id. at 4-11.)

22

Regardless of whether Williams cured the defects in his subpoena, it would still be

23

inappropriate to issue it. First, Williams has not served Defendants with any discovery requests,

24

which would be the appropriate way to obtain this information. See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 26;

25

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. Moreover, Defendants indicate that they have produced the information

26

1

ORDER
PAGE - 2

512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).

1

Williams sought, thus mooting his request. (Dkt. No. 20 at 1-2.)

2

The motion to quash (Dkt. No. 10) is GRANTED.

3

B.

4

Defendants ask the Court to stay discovery until it has resolved the pending motion to

Motion to Stay

5

dismiss (Dkt. No. 5) and motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 11). (Dkt. No. 24 at 1.)

6

Defendants argue that the issues of jurisdiction and immunity raised in their dispositive motions

7

warrant a stay. (Dkt. No. 24 at 3) (citing Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau,

8

124 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D. Nev. 1989) (“[A] pending Motion to Dismiss is not ordinarily a

9

situation that in and of itself would warrant a stay of discovery. Common examples of such

10

situations, however, occur when jurisdiction, venue, or immunity are preliminary issues.”)).
Williams did not respond to Defendants’ motion to stay. The Court considers this “as an

11
12

admission that the motion has merit.” W.D. Wash. Local Civ. R. 7(b)(2).

13

Given the early stage of this case, the nature of the arguments raised in the dispositive

14

motions, and the fact that the dispositive motions have already noted (meaning there will be a

15

relatively short period of time until the Court rules on them), the Court determines it appropriate

16

to stay discovery until those motions have been resolved.

17
18

The motion to stay (Dkt. No. 24) is GRANTED.

III.

CONCLUSION

19

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to quash subpoena

20

(Dkt. No. 10) and motion to stay discovery (Dkt. No. 24). Williams’s motions to compel (Dkt.

21

Nos. 22, 27) are hereby STAYED pending the Court’s resolution of Defendants’ dispositive

22

motions (Dkt. Nos. 5, 11). The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this order to Williams.

23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//

ORDER
PAGE - 3

1

DATED this 11th day of April, 2017.

4

A

5

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2
3

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER
PAGE - 4