Richey v. Dahne

Filing 151

ORDER Granting Defendant's 144 Motion to Quash; Denying Plaintiff's 145 Motion to Appoint Counsel and 146 Motion to Suspend Hearing and Award Sanctions; signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle.**3 PAGE(S), PRINT ALL**(Thomas Richey, Prisoner ID: 929444)(GMR)

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

6
7
8

THOMAS W.S. RICHEY,
Plaintiff,

9
10

v.
D. DAHNE,

11

Defendant.

12
13

CASE NO. C12-5060 BHS
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO
QUASH AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
APPOINT COUNSEL AND
MOTION TO SUSPEND HEARING
AND AWARD SANCTIONS

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant D. Dahne’s (“Dahne”) motion to

14

quash subpoenas, Dkt. 144, and Plaintiff Thomas W.S. Richey’s (“Richey”) motion to

15

appoint counsel, Dkt. 145, and motion seeking suspension of evidentiary hearing and

16

request for sanctions, Dkt. 146.

17

On December 11, 2019, Dahne filed a motion to quash subpoenas Richey had

18

served requesting witnesses to testify at depositions. Dkt. 144. Dahne argues that the

19

Court should quash the subpoenas because they do not allow a reasonable time to

20

comply, require an individual to comply beyond the geographic limitations, and subject

21

the witnesses to undue burden. Id. On December 20, 2019, Richey responded and

22

ORDER - 1

1

conceded that the subpoenas “have deficiencies.” Dkt. 145 at 1. The Court agrees and

2

therefore GRANTS Dahne’s motion to quash.

3

Richey also moved for appointment of counsel. Id. The Court DENIES the

4

motion because Richey has failed to show an extraordinary circumstance that requires the

5

assistance of counsel.

6

In the alternative, Richey requests that the Court allow him to depose the

7

witnesses in an appropriate manner. Id. at 2. At this point, the record does not reflect

8

Dahne or the State’s unwillingness to work with Richey to accommodate either video

9

depositions or some other form of discovery, such as requests for admissions, so that

10

Richey may obtain the evidence he is seeking. Absent such refusal to comply with

11

Richey’s reasonable requests, the Court declines to intervene in something that the

12

parties should be able to accomplish themselves.

13

Finally, on December 20, 2019, Richey filed a motion requesting suspension of

14

the evidentiary hearing and sanctions for spoliation of evidence. Dkt. 146. On January 3,

15

2020, Dahne responded. Dkt. 148. On January 14, 2020, Richey replied. Dkt. 150.

16

Regarding the evidentiary hearing, Richey argues that he has submitted sufficient

17

evidence to establish that the hearing is no longer necessary. Dkt. 146. The Court

18

disagrees. Richey’s evidence does not establish as a matter of undisputable fact that the

19

allegations he wrote in the relevant grievance were true as opposed to a fabrication to

20

initiate litigation. Therefore, the Court DENIES the request to suspend the hearing.

21
22

Regarding sanctions, Dahne contends that he did not spoil or withhold evidence
regarding the actual incident Richey wrote about in the grievance. Dkt. 148. Instead,

ORDER - 2

1

Dahne contends that these facts became relevant when Richey told his wife that he

2

fabricated the substance of the grievance. Id. The Court agrees. Therefore, the Court

3

DENIES Richey’s motion for sanctions.

4
5

In sum, the Court grants Dahne’s motion, Dkt. 144, and denies Richey’s motions,
Dkts. 145, 146.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated this 27th day of January, 2020.

A

8
9

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3