J.S. v. Kent School District et al
Filing
18
ORDER denying Plaintiff's 15 Motion to Quash. Signed by Judge Lauren King. (SB) (cc: Plaintiff via USPS)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
8
9
10
11
12
13
J.S.,
CASE NO. 2:24-cv-01060-LK
v.
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
QUASH
KENT SCHOOL DISTRICT et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
16
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff J.S.’s Motion to Quash. Dkt. No. 15. J.S.
17
appears to be seeking to quash subpoenas that have been sent to third parties Synergy Edu,
18
Skyward, and Health Point—none of whom are named defendants in this matter—“until a decision
19
has been made on [a]cceptance of” his amended complaint. Id. at 2; see also Dkt. No. 13 (amended
20
complaint).
21
The Court denies this motion. J.S. did not attach the purported subpoenas to his motion, so
22
the Court does not know what subpoenas J.S. is seeking to quash. In any event, J.S. does not need
23
a court order to “quash” any subpoenas that he himself sent to third parties. If he already sent them
24
out, he can simply notify the third parties that he is withdrawing the subpoenas. See, e.g., Rockhill
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO QUASH - 1
1
v. Juede, No. CV11-1308-BJR, 2012 WL 13020020, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 25, 2012) (noting
2
that a court cannot enforce a subpoena that has been withdrawn).
3
The Court notes, however, that any subpoenas served to third parties thus far are premature.
4
A party is generally not permitted to “seek discovery from any source before the parties have
5
conferred as required by [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 26(f)[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d)(1)
6
(emphasis added). Defendants have not yet appeared in this action, and consequently the parties
7
have not yet conferred as required by Rule 26. Therefore, J.S. “may not seek discovery from any
8
source” at this time, including through third-party subpoenas. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d) (emphasis
9
added); see also Michelle v. Arctic Zero, Inc., No. 12-cv-2063 GPC (NLS), 2013 WL 3807888, at
10
*3 (S.D. Cal. July 18, 2013) (“While Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 does not specify when a
11
subpoena may be issued, because a subpoena is considered a discovery device, it is subject to the
12
provisions of Rule 26(d).”); Villegas v. United States, No. CV-12-0001-EFS, 2012 WL 1801735,
13
at *8 (E.D. Wash. May 16, 2012) (“Rule 26(d) clearly prohibits ‘discovery from any source’ before
14
the parties have conferred, which by its plain language includes subpoenas duces tecum served on
15
non-parties.”).
16
The Court also independently notes that Defendants do not appear to have been properly
17
served pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. See Dkt. No. 16 at 2; Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e).
18
Service by mail alone is not permitted under either the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see Fed.
19
R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2), or Washington law when personal service is possible, Williams v. Recovery
20
Innovations Inc., No. 3:24-cv-05496-DGE, 2024 WL 4519959, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 17, 2024)
21
(citing Rodriguez v. James-Jackson, 111 P.3d 271, 274 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005)). The Court again
22
reminds J.S. that materials to assist pro se litigants are available on the United States District Court
23
for the Western District of Washington’s website, including a Pro Se Guide to Filing Your Lawsuit
24
in Federal Court (https://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/representing-yourself-pro-se).
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO QUASH - 2
1
For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES J.S.’s motion to quash. Dkt. No. 15. As the
2
Court previously reminded J.S., despite the leeway afforded to them, pro se litigants must comply
3
with case deadlines, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and this District’s Local Rules. Dkt. No.
4
12 at 9; see also Muñoz v. United States, 28 F.4th 973, 978 (9th Cir. 2022) (pro se litigants must
5
adhere to the same procedural requirements as other litigants).
6
Dated this 24th day of October, 2024.
7
A
8
Lauren King
United States District Judge
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO QUASH - 3
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?