Weinstein v. Mandarich Law Group, LLP

Filing 19

ORDER denying Defendant's 16 Motion for Protective Order. The deposition should occur as requested by Plaintiff. Signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

THOMAS WEINSTEIN,
Plaintiff,

Case No. C17-1897 RSM
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

v.
MANDARICH LAW GROUP, LLP,

14
15
16

Defendant.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Mandarich Law Group, LLP

17
18

(“Mandarich”)’s Motion for Protective Order. Dkt. #16. Mandarich moves for a protective

19

order preventing it from being required to produce Ryan Vos, its 30(b)(6) representative, for a

20

deposition in Washington State. Id. Instead, Mandarich proposes that this deposition take

21

place in California where it is located and where Mr. Vos is a resident. Id. According to

22
23
24

Mandarich’s briefing, Mr. Vos “does not routinely travel for business purposes.” Id. at 2.
Mandarich has declined to pay for Plaintiff Thomas Weinstein’s counsel to travel to California,

25

and suggests that deposition could occur by video conference. See id. at 3–4. The Court notes

26

that Ryan Vos is also Mandarich’s sole counsel of record in this case. See Dkt. #6.

27
28

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - 1

1

Mr. Weinstein argues it would be a financial burden to pay for his counsel to travel to

2

California for the deposition. Dkt. #17. He notes that, under Washington Rule of Professional

3

Conduct 1.8, such a cost would ultimately be his burden as the client. He submits a declaration

4

informing the Court of his financial status. He states that he makes $19.50 per hour, has

5
6
7

minimal savings, lives paycheck to paycheck, and that his pregnant wife was injured on the job
and is currently on disability. Dkt. #17-2.

8

“A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order

9

in the court where the action is pending – or as an alternative on matters relating to a

10
11
12

deposition, in the court for the district where the deposition will be taken.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(c)(1). “The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from

13

annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense…” Id. “If a motion for a

14

protective order is wholly or partly denied, the court may, on just terms, order that any party or

15

person provide or permit discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(3). “The decision to issue a

16

protective order rests within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Seiter v. Yokohama Tire

17
18

Corp., 2009 WL 2461000, *1 (W.D. Wash. 2009).

19

“In the absence of special circumstances, ‘a party seeking discovery must go where the

20

desired witnesses are normally located.’” Clairmont v. Genuity, Inc., No. C02-1876L, 2004

21

WL 2287781, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 26, 2004) (quoting United States v. $160,066.98 from

22
23
24

Bank of America, 202 F.R.D. 624, 627 (S.D.Cal.2001)). “A plaintiff's claim of financial
hardship does not constitute special circumstances, at least when… that claim is not

25

accompanied by other exceptional circumstances.”

26

Lawrence Photo–Graphic Supply, Inc., 84 F.R.D. 130, 131 (W.D. Mo. 1979)). Factors to

27

Id. (citing General Leasing Co. v.

consider when determining whether another location for the deposition is appropriate include:

28

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - 2

1

“(1) location of counsel in the forum district; (2) number of corporate representatives to be

2

deposed; (3) likelihood of significant discovery disputes arising which would necessitate

3

resolution by the forum court; (4) whether the persons sought to be deposed often engage in

4

travel for business purposes; and (5) the equities with regard to the nature of the claim and the

5
6
7

parties’ relationship.” Lynch v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., No. C13-654-BAT, 2014 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 189107, *9-10 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 14, 2014) (citing Stonebreaker v. Guardian Life Ins.

8

Co., 820 F. Supp. 2d 1096, 1098 (S.D. Cal. 2011). The expense to the parties and judicial

9

economy are also considerations. Id. at *10 (citing Cadent Ltd. v. 3M Unitek, 232 F.R.D. 625,

10
11
12

628-29 (C.D. Cal. 2005)). A district court has “wide discretion to establish the time and place
of depositions.” Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1994).

13

This case presents the exceptional circumstance of Mandarich’s sole attorney of record

14

being named as the 30(b)(6) deponent.1 Mr. Vos, although licensed to practice law in the State

15

of Washington, resides in California. He states in briefing that he does not often engage in

16

travel for business purposes, however he is representing a client in this district and could easily

17
18

be required to travel here for a hearing or the trial. Another exceptional circumstance is the

19

nature of Defendant’s business.

20

Defendant routinely avails itself of Washington State courts in its business, including in prior

21

legal action against Mr. Weinstein. See Dkts. #5-1 and #17-1. This leads the Court to doubt

22
23
24
25

The Court is convinced by the evidence submitted that

the credibility of Mr. Vos’ unsubstantiated statement that he does not routinely travel for
business. While Mr. Weinstein’s claim of financial hardship does not alone constitute special
circumstances, combined with these “other exceptional circumstances” it weighs as a

26
27
28

1

The Court also notes how Mr. Vos acting as Mandarich’s sole counsel and its 30(b)(6) witness may eventually
lead to problems under Washington Rule of Professional Conduct 3.7, even if it does not violate the rule.
Comment 1 to RPC 3.7 states, “[c]ombining the roles of advocate and witness can prejudice the tribunal and the
opposing party and can also involve a conflict of interest between the lawyer and client.”

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - 3

1

consideration before the Court. Mr. Weinstein has presented credible evidence of an undue

2

hardship to pay for his counsel to travel to California for a deposition. Indeed, his inability to

3

pay a few thousand dollars is a fundamental background fact in this action. See Dkt. #1-3.

4

Given the nature of the claim and the parties’ relationship, equity tips in favor of Plaintiff.

5
6
7

Given all of the above, and having reviewed the relevant briefing, the declarations and
exhibits attached thereto, and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS

8

that Defendant Mandarich’s Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. #16) is DENIED.

9

deposition should occur as requested by Plaintiff. The Court declines to strike any arguments

10
11
12
13
14
15

The

in Defendant’s briefing.
DATED this 10th day of May 2018.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - 4