Salas v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc et al
Filing
34
ORDER granting Plaintiff's 28 Motion for Protective Order and to Quash or Modify Subpoena, signed by Judge Ricardo S. Martinez. (SWT)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
LORENZO SANTIAGO SALAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. C17-1787RSM
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH
OR MODIFY SUBPOENA
PPG ARCHITECTURAL FINISHES, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, HOFAX PRODUCTS,
INC., a Washington Corporation, JOHN
DOES 1-4,
Defendants.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Lorenzo Santiago Salas’s Motion for
Protective Order and to Quash or Modify Subpoena. Dkt. #28.
A full background of this discovery dispute is unnecessary. This is a products-liability
action in which the plaintiff alleges a spray can exploded in his hands, causing injury. See Dkt.
22
#19 at 4. GT Engineering was retained as consulting experts by Plaintiff. Dkt. #28-1 at 2.
23
Defendants mailed a subpoena to GT Engineering seeking “all records, files, correspondence,
24
25
26
notes, test results, objects, and spray texture can that is the subject of this lawsuit.” Id. at 12.
Defendants emailed a copy of that subpoena to Plaintiffs. GT Engineering apparently had
27
possession of the can for testing purposes.
Plaintiff stated in initial disclosures and in
28
interrogatory responses that GT Engineering “may… testify.” Dkt. #30-1 at 8 and 13.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH OR MODIFY
SUBPOENA - 1
1
The Court has reviewed the briefing of the parties and submitted declarations, and is
2
disappointed that the parties have been unable to resolve this relatively simple dispute. The
3
parties appear more interested in highlighting each other’s perceived procedural errors than in
4
properly exchanging information.
5
6
7
It is not clear how Plaintiff has been prejudiced by Defendants serving the subpoena
request to Plaintiff via email given the history of communications between the parties.
8
However, giving Plaintiffs the benefit of the doubt as to whether GT Engineering was a
9
consulting expert rather than a testifying expert at the time of the original subpoena,
10
11
12
13
Defendants have not shown exceptional circumstances to justify production of GT
Engineering’s expert opinions and conclusions. Because GT Engineering had possession of the
can at issue, Defendants may ask factual questions about chain-of-custody.
14
Having reviewed the relevant briefing, the declarations and exhibits attached thereto,
15
and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Plaintiff Salas’s
16
Motion for Protective Order and to Quash or Modify Subpoena, Dkt. #28, is GRANTED.
17
18
Defendant shall issue a new subpoena seeking only factual, chain-of-custody information. The
19
parties shall attempt in good faith to enter a joint agreement before Defendant conducts any
20
destructive testing.
21
22
23
24
25
26
DATED this 13 day of August, 2018.
A
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27
28
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH OR MODIFY
SUBPOENA - 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?