Case 2:14-cv-01641-MJP Document 72 Filed 08/20/15 Page 1 of 11

1

THE HONORABLE MARSHA J. PECHMAN

2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

IGNACIO LANUZA,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

Case No. CV14-1641 MJP

v.
JONATHAN M. LOVE, and UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA,

15

THIRD PARTY JONATHAN
LOVE'S MOTION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER
NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:
AUGUST 28, 2015

Defendants.

16

I. Introduction and Relief Requested

17
Plaintiff Ignacio Lanuza seeks to depose third party Jonathan Love pursuant to a Fed. R.

18
19

Civ. P. 45 subpoena. See Exhibit A attached to the Declaration of Thomas M. Brennan in

20

Support of Third Party Jonathan Love's Motion for Protective Order (Brennan Decl.) at ¶2.

21

Lanuza has also demanded records. Given the civil/criminal tension, Love respectfully petitions

22

the Court for a protective order (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)) that bars his deposition and document

23
24

production pending resolution of parallel criminal proceedings. 1 The parties conducted a Fed. R.

25

Civ. P. 26(c) discovery conference call on August 13, 2015, but Lanuza would not accommodate

26

1

27
28

The deposition subpoena imposes an undue burden, and Love would correctly be exercising his rights if he were to
ask this Court to quash the subpoena under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3). But Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(3) is not the only
source of protection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) protections can be employed by "any person from whom discovery is
sought…," not just parties. Accordingly, Love believes the Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 considerations provide the appropriate
flexibility for staying Love's deposition pending the conclusion of the criminal proceedings.

LOVE’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - 1
CV14-1641 MJP

McKay Chadwell, PLLC
600 University Street, Suite 1601
Seattle, Washington 98101-4124
(206) 233-2800 Fax (206) 233-2809

 Case 2:14-cv-01641-MJP Document 72 Filed 08/20/15 Page 2 of 11

1
2
3
4
5

Love's request to stay discovery related solely to Love while the criminal matter remains
outstanding. See Brennan Decl. at ¶4.
On March 6, 2015, defendant United States of America disclosed the fact that the Office
of Inspector General (OIG) for the Department of Homeland Security is conducting a criminal
investigation of Love related to the claims alleged by plaintiff Lanuza in this lawsuit. See Dkt. #

6
7

34 at p. 7 and Dkt. # 34-1 at p.4. The OIG investigation was spurred by a complaint Lanuza

8

lodged with OIG, and the federal government surmised the OIG investigation might present

9

"competing interests" with this civil case. Id. More recently, the United States informed the

10

Court that the Federal Bureau of Investigation also is involved in the criminal investigation. See

11
12

Dkt. # 59 at p. 7. Indeed, the United States Attorney for the Western District of Washington has
13

informed Love that the government is investigating criminal statutes against him based on the

14

same set of facts. See Brennan Decl. at ¶5.

15
16

In the meantime, Lanuza has appealed this Court's decision to dismiss the civil claims
against Love. See Dkt. # 43. Lanuza also wishes to subject Love to third party discovery via

17
18

Lanuza's remaining civil action against the United States. By filing an appeal, Lanuza continues

19

to pursue civil damages against Love; and therefore, Lanuza puts Love in the predicament of

20

weighing his defense against a potential criminal indictment against his civil defense against

21

Lanuza. No doubt, it is reasonable to conclude that Lanuza will desire to use the fruits of this

22

deposition (including any negative inferences) if and when the Ninth Circuit remands his case

23
24
25
26
27

against Love.
In doing so, Lanuza complicates the civil and criminal proceedings, and his discovery
request has the potential to prejudice Love given the inherent tension that arises when criminal
and civil matters proceed at the same time. Respectfully, the third party deposition (and

28
LOVE’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - 2
CV14-1641 MJP

McKay Chadwell, PLLC
600 University Street, Suite 1601
Seattle, Washington 98101-4124
(206) 233-2800 Fax (206) 233-2809

 Case 2:14-cv-01641-MJP Document 72 Filed 08/20/15 Page 3 of 11

1

document request) should not proceed while the criminal matter is open, and Love respectfully

2

petitions the Court for a discovery protective order that bars his deposition pending the resolution

3

of the criminal matter.

4
5

II. Background Facts
On March 20, 2015, this Court dismissed Lanuza's claims against Love. See Dkt. # 35.

6
7

Love is no longer a party to this case. On August 12, 2015, Love was served with a Fed. R. Civ.

8

P. 45 third party deposition subpoena. See Exhibit A attached to Brennan Decl. at ¶2. As noted

9

above, two key facts complicate discovery in this case. First, the federal government is

10

conducting an active criminal investigation related to the facts alleged by Lanuza in this case.

11
12
13
14
15
16

Second, Lanuza continues to seek civil damages against Love as evidenced by his May 21, 2015
notice of appeal and his desire to re-open his claims against Love. See Dkt. # 43.
Before dismissal, Lanuza claimed Love submitted papers to the immigration court on or
about May 11, 2009, including a "falsified" Form I-826. Id. at p. 6, ¶ 27. The allegedly falsified
Form I-826 purportedly undermined Lanuza's ability to establish that he had been in the United

17
18

States continuously for ten years, which in turn made Lanuza ineligible to remain in the United

19

States under 8 U.S.C. 1229b. Id. at p. 6, ¶ 27. Lanuza claims the Form I-826 was altered by ICE

20

to appear that Lanuza had signed the form in 2000. Id. at p. 11, ¶ 55.

21
22

Lanuza also claimed Love violated Lanuza's Fifth Amendment procedural and
substantive due process rights and is liable under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the

23
24
25
26
27

Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Id. at p. 18.
Lanuza seeks to revive these allegations. His appellate brief is due August 31, 2015.
III. Legal Discussion
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) empowers federal courts to manage discovery in order to protect a

28
LOVE’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - 3
CV14-1641 MJP

McKay Chadwell, PLLC
600 University Street, Suite 1601
Seattle, Washington 98101-4124
(206) 233-2800 Fax (206) 233-2809

 Case 2:14-cv-01641-MJP Document 72 Filed 08/20/15 Page 4 of 11

1

party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden. And a third party

2

subpoena that subjects a person to an undue burden may be quashed. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

3

45(d)(3)(A)(iv).

4
5

In addition, “[w]hile a district court may stay civil proceedings pending the outcome of
parallel criminal proceedings, such action is not required by the Constitution.” Four In One

6
7

Company, Inc. v. SK Foods, L.P., 2010 WL 4718751 (E.D. Cal. 2010) at *4 quoting Federal Sav.

8

And Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 902 (9th Cir. 1989) citing Securities and

9

Exchange Comm’n v. Dresser Indus., 628 F.2d 1368, 1375 (D.C. Cir. 1980). “Nevertheless, a

10

court may decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings . . . ‘when the interests of justice seem

11
12
13
14
15
16

[ ] to require such action.’” Id. citing Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 325
(9th Cir. 1995) quoting Dresser, 628 F.2d at 1375.
Love wishes only to stay his deposition and subpoena duces tecum. He does not wish to
stay Lanuza's civil case or his right to discovery in general. The Four in One and Molinaro
discussions are useful here, even though the question was whether to stay all discovery. The

17
18

considerations, interests and factors remain the same; and the cases discussing discovery stays in

19

these circumstances provide the legal rationale for an order protecting Love from a deposition at

20

this time.

21
22

"Courts are afforded this discretion, because the denial of a stay could impair a party's
Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, extend criminal discovery beyond the

23
24

limits set forth in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(b), expose the defense's theory to the

25

prosecution in advance of trial, or otherwise prejudice the criminal case." Trustees of the

26

Plumbers & Pipefitters Nat'l Pension Fund v. Transworld Mech, Inc., 886 F.Supp. 1134, 1138

27

(S.D.N.Y.1995).

28
LOVE’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - 4
CV14-1641 MJP

McKay Chadwell, PLLC
600 University Street, Suite 1601
Seattle, Washington 98101-4124
(206) 233-2800 Fax (206) 233-2809

 Case 2:14-cv-01641-MJP Document 72 Filed 08/20/15 Page 5 of 11

Ultimately, “a court must decide whether to stay civil proceedings in the face of parallel

1
2

criminal proceedings in light of the particular circumstances and competing interests involved in

3

the case.” Molinaro, 889 F.2d at 902-903 citing Dresser, 628 F.2d at 1375. Molinaro explains

4

that a court must consider the implications on a defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights. Id.

5

“Other factors a court should consider will vary according to the case itself, but
generally will include: (1) the interest of the plaintiffs in proceeding expeditiously
with this litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the potential prejudice to
plaintiffs of a delay; (2) the burden which any particular aspect of the proceedings
may impose on defendants; (3) the convenience of the court in the management of
its cases, and the efficient use of judicial resources; (4) the interests of persons not
parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the interest of the public in the pending civil
and criminal litigation.”

6
7
8
9
10

Four in One at *4 citing Molinaro, 889 F.2d at 902-03 citing Golden Quality Ice Cream

11
12
13

v. Deerfield Specialty Papers, Inc., 87 F.R.D. 53, 56 (E.D. Pa. 1980); United States v. Kordel,
397 U.S. 1 (1970); Dresser, 628 F.2d at 1374-76.

14
The Four In One court concluded that the Fifth Amendment considerations and Molinaro

15
16

factors outweigh the need for civil discovery, even though a criminal trial was not imminent in

17

that case. Specifically, the court found (1) because the simultaneous civil and criminal

18

proceedings involve the same or closely related facts, Fifth Amendment concerns weigh in favor

19

of a stay; 2 (2) another six month stay would not limit the plaintiffs ability to conduct

20
21

investigations and engage in document discovery; (3) allowing depositions to proceed in the civil

22

case creates the concern that some witnesses under investigation will potentially invoke their

23

Fifth Amendment rights, frustrating the discovery process; (4) judicial efficiency may be

24

achieved by allowing the criminal case to streamline discovery in the civil case since the

25
2

26
27
28

In making its Fifth Amendment determination, the Four in One court referenced a case that was stayed completely
until resolution of the parallel criminal case (United States v. Booth, 2010 WL 315543 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2010)) and
a case that concluded that “pending civil litigation may substantially implicate defendants’ Fifth Amendment
rights…[and] create unnecessary complexities with respect to discovery, expose defendants’ strategies or theories
with respect to the criminal case or otherwise prejudice the pending criminal proceedings.” (Taylor, Bean &
Whitaker Mortg. Corp. v. Triduanum Financial Inc., 2009 WL 2136986 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jul. 15, 2009)).

LOVE’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - 5
CV14-1641 MJP

McKay Chadwell, PLLC
600 University Street, Suite 1601
Seattle, Washington 98101-4124
(206) 233-2800 Fax (206) 233-2809

 Case 2:14-cv-01641-MJP Document 72 Filed 08/20/15 Page 6 of 11

1

proceedings will rely on much of the same evidence and many of the same witnesses; (5) third

2

party interests would be served by avoiding the prospect of forcing potential defendants to

3

choose between responding to questions or asserting their Fifth Amendment rights; and (6)

4

unfettered civil discovery risks undermining the public’s right to fair and efficient prosecution of

5

the criminal case and would allow parties to obtain discovery that would otherwise not be

6
7
8
9
10

permitted under the more restrictive criminal rules. Four in One at *6.
It is not uncommon for district courts to stay civil proceedings pending the outcome of a
criminal investigation.

19

“There is a clearcut distinction between private interests in civil litigation and the
public interest in a criminal prosecution, between a civil trial and a criminal trial,
and between the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure. But these distinctions do not mean that a civil action and a
criminal action involving the same parties and some of the same issues are so
unrelated that in determining good cause for discovery in the civil suit, a
determination that requires the weighing of effects, the trial judge in the civil
proceeding should ignore the effect discovery would have on a criminal
proceeding that is pending or just about to be brought. The very fact that there is
clear distinction between civil and criminal actions requires a government policy
determination of priority: which case should be tried first. Administrative policy
gives priority to the public interest in law enforcement. This seems so necessary
and wise that a trial judge should give substantial weight to it in balancing the
policy against the right of a civil litigant to a reasonably prompt determination of
his civil claims or liabilities.”

20

Souza v. Schiltgen, 1996 WL 241824 *3 (N.D. Cal. 1996) quoting Campbell v. Eastland,

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

21
22

307 F.2d 478, 487 (5th Cir. 1962).
In Campbell, the plaintiff brought a civil action for a tax refund while a criminal

23
24

prosecution of the plaintiff for tax fraud was being considered. The I.R.S. moved to stay

25

discovery pending the outcome of the criminal investigation, even though the federal

26

government had not yet presented the case to a grand jury. The Campbell court cited the dangers

27

of allowing a civil case to go forward where it is intimately related to an ongoing criminal

28
LOVE’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - 6
CV14-1641 MJP

McKay Chadwell, PLLC
600 University Street, Suite 1601
Seattle, Washington 98101-4124
(206) 233-2800 Fax (206) 233-2809

 Case 2:14-cv-01641-MJP Document 72 Filed 08/20/15 Page 7 of 11

1
2

investigation.
In this circuit, the Souza court relied on the Molinaro factors and the Campbell rationale

3

to rule that a court can stay civil proceedings even when the criminal matter is only in the

4

investigation stage. Id. at *3. The Souza court stayed the plaintiff’s civil action against the

5

Immigration and Naturalization Service for 90 days pending the ongoing INS/DOJ criminal

6
7

investigation. The U.S. Attorney was obligated to report to the court on the progress and status

8

of the criminal investigation. See also Board of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys. v. Pharaon, 140

9

F.R.D. 634 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (granting stay of discovery in civil action pending termination of

10

grand jury investigation of defendant in criminal case).

11
12
13

a. Federal Precedent Protects Love from Testimonial Discovery Given the Criminal
Investigation and the Risk of Negative Inference in Civil Proceeding
The Molinaro and Keating factors establish the fact that Love too is burdened by

14
15

simultaneous, parallel proceedings; whereas, neither the government nor Lanuza will be

16

unnecessarily prejudiced by handling the two cases sequentially. As discussed, the civil and

17

criminal matters both focus on the same set of facts.

18
19

The matters are parallel not distinct. Molinaro and Keating explain that Fifth
Amendment considerations shall be taken into consideration when parallel cases are pending.

20
21

Love's civil defense will be burdened and his Fifth Amendment privilege will be compromised if

22

Love is obligated to sit for a deposition now while Lanuza may be allowed to later benefit from

23

the negative inference that might be made if Love is forced to invoke the Fifth Amendment.

24
25

In civil proceedings negative inferences can be drawn from a party's invocation of a Fifth
Amendment right and independent evidence corroborates the fact under inquiry. See SEC v.

26
27
28

Colello, 139 F.3d 674 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Doe ex rel. Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d
1258 (2000) citing LaSalle Bank Lake View v. Seguban, 54 F.3d 387 (7th Cir. 1995). No doubt
LOVE’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - 7
CV14-1641 MJP

McKay Chadwell, PLLC
600 University Street, Suite 1601
Seattle, Washington 98101-4124
(206) 233-2800 Fax (206) 233-2809

 Case 2:14-cv-01641-MJP Document 72 Filed 08/20/15 Page 8 of 11

1

Lanuza would attempt to use Love's present testimony (and potential negative inferences) if and

2

when the Ninth Circuit remands Lanuza's civil action for trial proceedings. The Court should

3

consider this eventuality while Lanuza's civil case is on appeal.

4
5

The other Molinaro factors also favor a protective order. First, Lanuza initiated the DHSOIG criminal investigation and presumably understood this conflict would arise when he filed

6
7

this civil action. Lanuza has an interest in both proceedings. He too will benefit from an orderly

8

handling of the parallel matters, and he will not be prejudiced by allowing the criminal matter to

9

take precedent.

10

Second, and most importantly, Lanuza recently chose to appeal his case against Love.

11
12
13

The criminal/civil tension would not exist but for the fact that Lanuza continues to pursue a civil
remedy against Love.

14

Third, as discussed in Souza, the public's interest in law enforcement rightly takes

15

precedent over civil proceedings. Fourth, requiring Love to proceed with civil discovery in light

16

of the DHS-OIG investigation very likely could burden Love's constitutional rights, frustrate the

17
18
19
20
21
22

discovery process, and grant the government access to material not permitted under the criminal
rules.
Simply, a parallel criminal investigation creates complications that implicate the Fifth
Amendment, and it is well within a federal district court's discretion to manage its cases and
balance the competing interests as efficiently as possible. See Federal Sav. And Loan Ins. Corp.

23
24
25
26
27
28

v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d 899, 902 (9th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, defendant Love respectfully asks
this Court to protect his interests and shield him from testimonial discovery at this time.
b. Fifth Amendment Privilege Extends to Document Request When the Mere Production
Would Be an Act of Self-Incrimination
In addition, a person may refuse to produce documents under the Fifth Amendment
LOVE’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - 8
CV14-1641 MJP

McKay Chadwell, PLLC
600 University Street, Suite 1601
Seattle, Washington 98101-4124
(206) 233-2800 Fax (206) 233-2809

 Case 2:14-cv-01641-MJP Document 72 Filed 08/20/15 Page 9 of 11

1

privilege against self-incrimination if the act of producing the documents has an incriminating

2

aspect. See Moore v. Gilead Sciences, Inc., 2011 WL 5572975 (N.D. Cal. 2011) citing United

3

States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000). Document production may implicitly communicate

4

statements of facts by compelling the person to admit that the papers exist, that the papers are in

5

his or her possession and that the papers are authentic. Id., 2011 WL 5572975 at *7. "However,

6
7

if the documents themselves contain incriminating assertions of fact or belief, the Fifth

8

Amendment does not apply because 'the creation of those documents was not compelled.'" Id.

9

In Hubbell, the Supreme Court noted that a request for records in a second government

10

investigation as to records that should have been produced under a plea agreement would

11
12
13
14
15
16

implicate the Fifth Amendment, because it would reveal whether or not the defendant had
completely and fully complied with the plea.
Here, Lanuza seeks, generally, the following information: (1) all documents related to
Lanuza, (2) all documents related to the forged Form I-826, and (3) the original Form I-826 that
was subsequently replaced in Lanuza's administrative file. See Exhibit B at pp. 7-8 attached to

17
18

the Brennan Decl. at ¶3. These requests are identified by Lanuza as requests for production

19

number 1 through number 3. The mere presence and production of these types of records, if

20

Love has them, would possibly be an act of self-incrimination based on the facts being

21

investigated by the government. Hence, Love should be protected from this type of request.

22
23

c. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), Discovery Must be Reasonably Calculated to Lead to the
Discovery of Admissible Evidence

24

Lanuza also seeks records related to Love's Washington State Bar Association

25

membership and withdrawal, Love's bar status in Colorado and Texas, and Love's bar

26
27
28

disciplinary records in Washington State, Colorado and Texas. See Exhibit B at pp. 7-8 attached
to the Brennan Decl. at ¶3. These requests are identified by Lanuza as requests for production
LOVE’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - 9
CV14-1641 MJP

McKay Chadwell, PLLC
600 University Street, Suite 1601
Seattle, Washington 98101-4124
(206) 233-2800 Fax (206) 233-2809

 Case 2:14-cv-01641-MJP Document 72 Filed 08/20/15 Page 10 of 11

1

number 4 through number 9. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 allows discovery when the information sought is

2

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The bar association

3

requests wholly pre-date the 2009 ICE activities related to Lanuza. Love has been living and

4

practicing law in Washington State since before the 2009 Lanuza ICE proceedings. The foreign

5

state bar inquiries are irrelevant given the fact that Love had no interaction with Lanuza prior to

6
7

2009. Accordingly, Love respectfully submits that the bar-related requests are beyond the scope

8

of discovery and he should be protected from these types of requests that appear only to be

9

presented for the purposes of harassment, embarrassment or annoyance.

10

IV. Conclusion

11
12

For the foregoing reasons, Love asks the Court to enter a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) protective
13

order that both delays Love's deposition until the completion of the FBI/DHS-OIG investigation

14

and protects Love from document production that might be an act of self-incrimination and

15

document requests that are designed to harass or embarrass Love.

16
17

DATED: August 20, 2015.
McKAY CHADWELL, PLLC

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

By s/Thomas M. Brennan
By s/Donald Jack Guthrie
Thomas M. Brennan, WSBA No. 30662
Donald Jack Guthrie, WSBA No. 46404
Attorneys for Jonathan M. Love
600 University Street, Suite 1601
Seattle, WA 98101-4124
Phone: (206) 233-2800
Fax: (206) 233-2809
Email: tmb@mckay-chadwell.com
djg@mckay-chadwell.com

26
27
28
LOVE’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - 10
CV14-1641 MJP

McKay Chadwell, PLLC
600 University Street, Suite 1601
Seattle, Washington 98101-4124
(206) 233-2800 Fax (206) 233-2809

 Case 2:14-cv-01641-MJP Document 72 Filed 08/20/15 Page 11 of 11

1
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 20, 2015, I electronically filed Defendant Love’s

3
4

Motion for Protective Order and Declaration of Thomas M. Brennan in Support of Defendant

5

Love’s Motion for Protective Order using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification

6

of such filing to all registered parties on this case, listed below:

7

Matt Adams

matt@nwirp.org

Glenda Melinda Aldana Madrid

glenda@nwirp.org

Timothy M. Durkin

TDurkinECF@usdoj.gov

11

Christopher Schenck

CSchenck@kilpatricktownsend.com

12

Donald Guthrie

djg@mckay-chadwell.com

Thomas Matthew Brennan

tmb@mckay-chadwell.com

Dario A Machleidt

dmachleidt@kilpatricktownsend.com

Stephanie M Martinez

smartinez@kilpatricktownsend.com

8
9
10

13
14
15
16
17

DATED this 20th day of August, 2015.

18

s/ Samantha Cayabyab
Samantha Cayabyab
Legal Assistant
McKay Chadwell, PLLC
600 University Street, Suite 1601
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 233-2800
Facsimile: (206) 233-2809
E-mail: snc@mckay-chadwell.com

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - 1
No. CV14-1641 MJP

McKay Chadwell, PLLC
600 University Street, Suite 1601
Seattle, Washington 98101
(206) 233-2800 Fax (206) 233-2809

 Case 2:14-cv-01641-MJP Document 72-1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 1 of 3

THE HONORABLE MARSHA J. PECHMAN

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

IGNACIO LANUZA,

10

Case No. CV14-1641 MJP
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

v.

ORDER GRANTING THIRD
PARTY JONATHAN LOVE'S
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER

JONATHAN M. LOVE, and UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA,

14
15
16

Defendants.

This matter came before the Court on third party Jonathan Love's August 20, 2015 Fed.

17
18
19
20
21
22

R. Civ. P. 26 motion for protective order.
The Court has reviewed the motion and supporting papers and based on the entirety of
the record, the Court hereby orders, adjudges and decrees that the motion is GRANTED.
The Court finds that Lanuza's request to depose Love and seek records from Love while
the federal government is investigating Love for criminal wrongdoing places an undue burden on

23
24

Love and infringes on his constitutional right not to provide information that might be

25

incriminating. The government is investigating the same facts alleged in Lanuza's complaint.

26

Federal courts have the discretion to manage cases to prevent this type of conflict of interest,

27

even before a litigant has been indicted.

28
ORDER GRANTING THIRD PARTY JONATHAN LOVE'S
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - 1
NO. CV14-1641 MJP

McKay Chadwell, PLLC
600 University Street, Suite 1601
Seattle, Washington 98101-4124
(206) 233-2800 Fax (206) 233-2809

 Case 2:14-cv-01641-MJP Document 72-1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 2 of 3

1

IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Love shall not be deposed in this

2

civil action while the government criminal investigation is ongoing. In addition, Love shall not

3

be required to produce records related to the facts alleged in this lawsuit. In particular, Love

4

shall not respond to requests for production Nos. 1 through 3 as requested in Lanuza's August 12,

5

2015 records subpoena.

6
7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Love shall not be

8

required to produce records in response to requests for production Nos. 4 through 9 in Lanuza's

9

August 12, 2015 records subpoena. Those requests seek information that pre-dates the facts at

10

issue in Lanuza's complaint and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

11
12

admissible evidence. The requests for information about Love's legal bar admissions and any
13

disciplinary proceedings appear to be designed to annoy, harass or embarrass Love. Love may

14

be required to respond to requests for production Nos. 1 through 3 once the government's

15

criminal investigation has concluded.

16
17
18

DATED this ___ day of _____________, 2015.

19
20
21

________________________________________
Honorable Marsha J. Pechman
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER GRANTING THIRD PARTY JONATHAN LOVE'S
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - 2
NO. CV14-1641 MJP

McKay Chadwell, PLLC
600 University Street, Suite 1601
Seattle, Washington 98101-4124
(206) 233-2800 Fax (206) 233-2809

 Case 2:14-cv-01641-MJP Document 72-1 Filed 08/20/15 Page 3 of 3

1
2

Presented by:
McKay Chadwell, PLLC

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

s/ Thomas M. Brennan
s/ Donald Jack Guthrie
Thomas M. Brennan, WSBA No. 30662
Donald Jack Guthrie, WSBA No. 46404
Attorneys for Jonathan M. Love
600 University Street, Suite 1601
Seattle, WA 98101-4124
Phone: (206) 233-2800
Fax: (206) 233-2809
Email: tmb@mckay-chadwell.com
djg@mckay-chadwell.com

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER GRANTING THIRD PARTY JONATHAN LOVE'S
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - 3
NO. CV14-1641 MJP

McKay Chadwell, PLLC
600 University Street, Suite 1601
Seattle, Washington 98101-4124
(206) 233-2800 Fax (206) 233-2809