Moi v. Chihuly Studio, Inc. et al

Filing 196

ORDER denying Defendants' 186 Motion for Return of Documents. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik.(MW)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12

MICHAEL MOI,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHIHULY STUDIO, INC., et al.,

No. C17-0853RSL
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR RETURN OF
DOCUMENTS

Defendants.

13
14

This matter comes before the Court on the “Chihuly Defendants’ Motion for Order re

15

Dale Chihuly’s Private Documents Retained by Plaintiff Moi.” Dkt. # 186. Defendants

16

essentially seek summary disposition of their conversion counterclaim in which they allege that

17

plaintiff “possesses personal and confidential private documents of Dale’s that he continues to

18

hold despite Dale’s demand that they be returned.” Dkt. # 3 at ¶ 6. These assertions have not

19

been proven. In fact, defendants opted to voluntarily dismiss the conversion counterclaim.

20

Defendants cannot obtain the relief requested simply by filing a motion untethered to any

21

existing claim. The motion will therefore be DENIED. The Court notes, however, that the

22

dismissal is without prejudice. If plaintiff or his agents have wilfully interfered with Mr.

23

Chihuly’s right to his property without lawful justification, defendants are free to seek any and

24
25
26
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR RETURN OF DOCUMENTS

1

all appropriate relief in another action.1

2
3

Dated this 7th day of October, 2019.

A
Robert S. Lasnik

4
5

United States District Judge

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

1

The Court has reviewed and considered the Declaration of Anne M. Bremner, plaintiff’s first
counsel in this matter. Dkt. # 192. Now that plaintiff’s copyright claims have been dismissed and there
is no plausible justification for needing to prove the nature of plaintiff’s relationship with Mr. Chihuly,
the Court expects that, in keeping with her excellent reputation for integrity and reasonableness, counsel
will prevail upon her former client for permission to return any and all copies of the “sensitive
documents” that she retains at this juncture.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR RETURN OF DOCUMENTS

-2-