The Honorable Nelson K. H. Lee
Hearing Date: July 2, 2020 at 1 pm

1
2
3
4
5
6

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
KING COUNTY

7

8 STATE OF WASHINGTON

SW No. 20-0-616926

9

NEWS MEDIA OBJECTIONS AND
REQUEST TO QUASH
PURPORTED SUBPOENA FOR
PROTECTED NEWSGATHERING
MATERIAL

10 COUNTY OF KING
11
12
13

I.

14

INTRODUCTION AND RELIEF REQUESTED

Pursuant to CR 45(c) and Washington’s journalist shield law, RCW 5.68.010, the Seattle

15 Times Co. (“Times”), Sinclair Media of Seattle, LLC (“KOMO-4”), KING Broadcasting
16 Company (“KING-5”), KIRO TV, Inc. (“KIRO-7”) and Fox Television Stations, LLC (“KCPQ17 13”) (collectively, “News Media”) object to the subpoena the Seattle Police Department (“SPD”)
18 purports to request in this matter (“Subpoena”). The Court should enter an order holding that the
19 Subpoena is unenforceable.1
20

The Subpoena is a procedurally irregular, overbroad and impermissible assault on the

21 independence of the press. SPD, acting through outside counsel, has targeted Seattle’s five
22 largest news outlets with an expansive demand for vast amounts of unaired news footage and
23 unpublished news photographs. The demand is not limited to evidence of the single unsolved
24 crime alleged in its supporting affidavit; instead, it seeks all images from 90 minutes of protests
25 across four city blocks.
26

1

The Subpoena misidentifies the entities that operate KING-5 and KCPQ-13. The correct
27 entities are as set forth above.
OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA - 1
4822-7525-1905v.3 0050033-000558

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
L AW O FFICE S
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax

 1

SPD’s fishing expedition disregards procedural safeguards that must be followed when

2 seeking evidence from news outlets. See Section V.A, infra.
3

The Subpoena also violates the constitutional and statutory privileges against compelled

4 disclosure of journalistic work product, particularly unpublished material. Both the First
5 Amendment and RCW 5.68.010 protect the news media from such compelled disclosure, largely
6 so that journalists are not perceived as arms of governmental investigators:
7
8
9
10
11

[C]ompelled disclosure of non-confidential information harms the press’
ability to gather information by . . . “converting the press in the public’s
mind into an investigative arm of prosecutors and the courts. . . . If
perceived as an adjunct of the police or of the courts, journalists might
well be shunned by persons who might otherwise give them information
without a promise of confidentiality, barred from meetings which they
would otherwise be free to attend and to describe, or even physically
harassed if, for example, observed taking notes or photographs at a
public rally.”

12 Shoen v. Shoen, 5 F.3d 1289, 1295 (9th Cir. 1993) (Shoen I), quoting Morse & Zucker, The
13 Journalist’s Privilege in Testimonial Privileges 474–75 (1983) (emphasis added). This risk of
14 distrust and physical harassment has been witnessed by local reporters covering the recent
15 protests in Seattle, and would be aggravated if SPD is allowed to enforce this Subpoena.
16

Under the shield statute, journalistic work product is privileged absent “clear and

17 convincing evidence” that the information is “highly material and relevant” and is “critical or
18 necessary” to a claim; that the party has “exhausted all reasonable and available means to obtain
19 it from alternative sources”; and that “[t]here is a compelling public interest in the disclosure.”
20 RCW 5.68.010(2). SPD cannot meet this burden here. The heightened relevance burden cannot
21 be satisfied by mere speculation, which is all SPD offers in its affidavit supporting the Subpoena.
22 Nor has SPD demonstrated that it has exhausted other sources of information, such as publicly
23 available social media images depicting this heavily recorded event. The Subpoena also is
24 contrary to the public interest, because – particularly in the context of news coverage of civil
25 unrest – requiring news outlets to hand over to police images of protesters imperils journalists
26 and impedes their ability to inform the public about such events. See Section V.B, infra.
27
OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA - 2
4822-7525-1905v.3 0050033-000558

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
L AW O FFICE S
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax

 Finally, the Subpoena is unduly burdensome and overly broad, which is a sufficient basis

1

2 for the Court to decline to enforce it under CR 45. See Section V.C, infra.
3

II.

4

STATEMENT OF FACTS

This matter is pending under a search warrant cause number, SW No. 20-0-61692-6.

5 Undersigned counsel for the News Media has been unable to access any filed document, view
6 any publicly available docket information, or file a Notice of Appearance.
7

According to documents SPD provided to each of the News Media parties, SPD

8 submitted to the Court an “Affidavit for Subpoena” (“Aff.”) in this matter on June 18, 2020. The
9 document asks the Court to “issue a subpoena duces tecum according to the procedure set forth
10 in CrR 2.3(f) and RCW 10.79.015(3),” and to set a hearing where the named “media outlets will
11 then have an opportunity to respond to the subpoena and have the Court rule on any objections.”
12 Judge Oishi apparently signed the request on June 18, 2020.2
13

The affidavit states that SPD seeks unpublished and unaired news images primarily to

14 locate two individuals – a man in a distinctive “red colored Adidas brand sweat suit” and a
15 female wearing a “black and white striped bandana,” See Aff at 11, 14. The affidavit refers to
16 the female as “unidentified” multiple times (id. at 7, 8, 9) before disclosing that she was in fact
17 taken into custody and charged a week before SPD requested the Subpoena. Id. at 15. The
18 affidavit states that both the male and female suspects are “very easy to track based upon their
19 clothing and actions during the civil unrest.” Id.
20

The requested Subpoena, however, seeks information far beyond these two individuals.

21 It demands all news footage for an extended period, at the epicenter of a period of both
22 demonstrations and civil unrest. The Subpoena demands:
23

Any and all video footage or photographs, including but not limited to all
unedited and/or raw video footage, taken on Saturday, May 30, 2020, from
1530 hours to 1700 hours from the locations of Olive Street to Pike Street
and also from 6th Avenue to 4th Avenue in Seattle, Washington.

24
25
26

2

The hearing set by Judge Oishi was initially set for June 29. This Court subsequently
27 rescheduled the hearing for July 2.
OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA - 3
4822-7525-1905v.3 0050033-000558

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
L AW O FFICE S
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax

 SPD subsequently served the Subpoena on each of the Times, KOMO-4, KING-5, KIRO-

1

2 7 and KCPQ-13, captioned as a “Subpoena Duces Tecum … Pursuant to CrR 2.3(f) and RCW
3 10.79.015(3).” The Subpoena fails to provide any place, date or time for compliance.
4

III.
1.

5

ISSUES PRESENTED

Whether SPD is entitled to enforce a subpoena to news outlets, seeking

6 unpublished information gathered in the course of gathering and reporting the news, where the
7 subpoena fails to comply with CR 45.
2.

8

Whether SPD has met its burden to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that

9 its subpoena to every major Seattle news organization, seeking information obtained in the
10 course of protected newsgathering activity, should not be quashed pursuant to RCW 5.68.010.
3.

11

Whether SPD’s subpoena is overbroad or otherwise objectionable pursuant to

12 CR 45.
13
14

IV.

EVIDENCE RELIED ON

The News Media rely on the Declaration of Danny Gawlowski (“Gawlowski Decl.”) (the

15 Times’ Assistant Managing Editor for photography), and on the filings in this matter.
16

V.

LEGAL AUTHORITY AND ARGUMENT

17

A.

18

As a threshold matter, any attempt to enforce the Subpoena at this stage would be

SPD’s Attempt to Enforce the Subpoena Is Procedurally Improper.

19 procedurally improper. As detailed below, the News Media must be provided the opportunity to
20 review and respond or object to the Subpoena as provided under CR 45; and any attempt to
21 enforce it must be pursuant to a motion to compel in an action under the Civil Rules, not in an
22 action docketed as a search warrant.
23

The requirement to proceed with a civil subpoena arises under RCW 10.79.015(3), which

24 states that if evidence of “any homicide or any felony” is sought “from any radio or television
25 station or from any regularly published newspaper, magazine or wire service, or from any
26 employee of [same], the evidence shall be secured only through a subpoena duces tecum,”
27 with limited exceptions that do not apply here. RCW 10.79.015(3) (emphasis added).
OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA - 4
4822-7525-1905v.3 0050033-000558

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
L AW O FFICE S
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax

 Enacted in 1980 (see 1980 c 52 § 1), RCW 10.79.015(3) is one of a number of similar

1

2 laws passed around the country to protect newsrooms from overreaching law enforcement
3 demands in the wake of Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547, 567-68 (1978). The facts of
4 Zurcher are instructive. A demonstration at Stanford University led to a violent clash with
5 police, in which nine officers were injured. A newspaper ran articles about the incident. Local
6 law enforcement obtained a warrant to search the newspaper’s office for photographs or other
7 evidence that might reveal “the identity of the perpetrators” of the assaults. Id. at 550-51.
8 Although the Court concluded that the newspaper could not pursue a civil rights action based on
9 the search, it also found that “the Fourth Amendment does not prevent or advise against
10 legislative or executive efforts to establish nonconstitutional protections against possible abuses
11 of the search warrant procedure.” Id. at 567. Congress and a number of states, including
12 Washington, “accepted the invitation to establish such protections.” J.O. v. Bedminster, 77 A.3d
13 1242, 1245 (N.J. App. 2013) (citing RCW 10.79.015(3)).3
Like RCW 10.79.015(3), the Criminal Rules also require that demands for news material

14

15 must be made via a civil subpoena. Criminal Rule 2.3(f), “Searches of Media,” provides:
16

(1) Scope. If an application for a search warrant is governed by
RCW 10.79.015(3) . . . this section controls the procedure for
obtaining the evidence.

17
18

(2) Subpoena Duces Tecum. Except as provided in subsection (3)
[governing issuance of a search warrant], if the court determines that
the application satisfies the requirements for issuance of a warrant,
as provided in section (c) of this rule, the court shall issue a
subpoena duces tecum in accordance with CR 45(b).

19
20

21 CrR 2.3(f) (emphasis added).
Accordingly, any attempt by SPD to obtain evidence from newspapers or television

22

23 stations must be made via a subpoena issued in accordance with CR 45(b). This assures that in
24 the face of any demand for compelled disclosure of journalistic work product, the press will have
25
26

3

Washington’s law has had its intended effect. It is rarely invoked, and has not been cited in
27 any published (or, for that matter, unpublished) appellate decision in its 40 years of existence.
OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA - 5
4822-7525-1905v.3 0050033-000558

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
L AW O FFICE S
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax

 1 an opportunity to review the request and, if it is objectionable, will have access to full judicial
2 review. CR 45(b) allows for this opportunity; a search warrant procedure does not.
3

SPD has failed to follow the requirements of CR 45. First, the Subpoena does not specify

4 “a time and place” for compliance, as required by CR45(a)(1)(C). This is not merely a formality.
5 A subpoena’s compliance time triggers the deadline for the recipient to serve objections.
6 CR 45(c)(2)(B). Timely objections shift the burden of enforcing the subpoena to the party
7 serving it, which cannot obtain the requested documents unless it brings a properly noticed
8 motion to compel under the Civil Rules. Id. SPD’s failure to provide a proper subpoena, but
9 instead to request that the Court immediately decide objections in a search warrant proceeding,
10 short-circuits this process. SPD should have provided the News Media an opportunity to review
11 and object to the Subpoena; and after reviewing and conferring over any such objections, it
12 would have been SPD’s burden to justify the Subpoena in a proper civil discovery motion.
13

SPD’s disregard of the CR 45 process also deprives the News Media of the usual route to

14 appellate review that attaches to efforts to enforce third-party subpoenas. A third party may
15 appeal an order in a civil action granting or denying a motion to enforce a subpoena. Republic of
16 Kazakhstan v. Does 1-100, 192 Wn. App. 773, 781, 368 P.3d 524 (2016) (nonparty appeal of
17 denial of motion to quash subpoena). In a search warrant action, it is unclear how, short of
18 seeking a writ of mandamus, the News Media would obtain such review.
19

Accordingly, the Court should take no action to enforce SPD’s Subpoena. Instead, the

20 Court should hold that it is not enforceable. If SPD still wishes to pursue the subpoena that it
21 requested from Judge Oishi on June 18, it should serve a subpoena that complies with CR 45,
22 and that follows its procedural safeguards, including by providing the News Media sufficient
23 time to review and object or respond.
24
25
26
27
OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA - 6
4822-7525-1905v.3 0050033-000558

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
L AW O FFICE S
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax

 1

B.

2
3

The Information Sought By the Subpoena Is Protected By the Shield Law,
the First Amendment, and the Common Law.

Should the Court permit SPD to pursue the Subpoena at this time, it should hold that it is

4 unenforceable under the shield statute (RCW 5.68.010) and the constitutional and common law
5 protections against compelled disclosure of journalistic work product.
6

Reporter shield laws protect non-party news media against compelled disclosure of

7 information acquired in the course of newsgathering activities. “Rooted in the First Amendment,
8 the privilege is a recognition that society’s interest in protecting the integrity of the
9 newsgathering process, and in ensuring the free flow of information to the public, is an interest
10 of sufficient social importance to justify some incidental sacrifice of sources of facts needed in
11 the administration of justice.” Shoen I, 5 F.3d at 1292 (internal quotation marks omitted).
12 Compelling the news media to produce unpublished news footage and images poses many
13 dangers to journalists’ autonomy, including:
14



the threat of judicial intrusion into the newsgathering and editorial process;

15



the disincentive to compile and preserve unpublished material if that material is
subject to disclosure;

16
17



the burden on journalists’ time and resources in responding to subpoenas; and

18



the perception that the journalist is an investigative arm of the judicial system or a
litigant.

19

20 Id. at 1294-95; Miller v. Superior Court of San Joaquin Cty., 21 Cal.4th 883, 886, 986 P.2d 170
21 (1999) (threat to press autonomy from subpoenas “is particularly clear in light of the press’s
22 unique role in society. . . . Because journalists not only gather a great deal of information, but
23 publicly identify themselves as possessing it, they are especially prone to be called upon by
24 litigants seeking to minimize the costs of obtaining needed information.”) (internal quotations
25 omitted).
26

Washington courts have long recognized the reporter’s privilege as a matter of both

27 constitutional and common law. See e.g., State v. Rinaldo, 102 Wn.2d 749, 689 P.2d 392 (1984);
OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA - 7
4822-7525-1905v.3 0050033-000558

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
L AW O FFICE S
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax

 1 Senear v. Daily Journal-American, 97 Wn.2d 148, 641 P.2d 1180 (1982); Clampitt v. Thurston
2 County, 98 Wn.2d 638, 658 P.2d 641 (1983).
3

In 2007, the Legislature codified the shield privilege as RCW 5.68.010. The statute

4 provides an unequivocal privilege to the “news media,” defined in relevant part to include any
5 newspaper or television station in the regular business of gathering and disseminating news or
6 information to the public by broadcast, and their employees who obtain or prepare news or
7 information in the scope of employment. RCW 5.68.010(5)(a), (b). The News Media entities
8 plainly meet this definition; indeed, SPD cites their extensive news coverage of the events of
9 May 30 as the very reason it seeks the Subpoena. See Aff. at 14, 15.
10

The statute provides an absolute privilege against disclosure of confidential news sources.

11 RCW 5.68.010(1)(a). In all other situations, the statute provides qualified protection against
12 subpoenas that compel the news media to “produce” or otherwise disclose any information
13 obtained in the course of “gathering, receiving, or processing news or information for potential
14 communication to the public.” RCW 5.68.010(1)(b). Here, the Subpoena falls within this broad
15 scope of the shield law. It seeks to compel the News Media to produce all “raw/unedited” video
16 and images taken by journalists from the demonstrations and unrest downtown on May 30.
17

To compel the media to disclose any information arising from its newsgathering

18 activities, the party seeking the information must establish each of following elements by “clear
19 and convincing evidence.” RCW 5.68.010(2). First, the information must be not merely
20 relevant but both “highly material and relevant” to the matter at hand and “critical or necessary
21 to the maintenance of a party’s claim, defense, or proof of an issue material thereto.” RCW
22 5.68.010(2)(b)(i), (ii). Second, the party seeking the information must show it “has exhausted all
23 reasonable and available means to obtain it from alternative sources.” RCW 5.68.010(2)(b)(iii);
24 Finally, the party seeking the information must show that “[t]here is a compelling public interest
25 in the disclosure.” RCW 5.68.010(2)(b)(iv). SPD cannot show these elements, much less by
26 clear and convincing evidence.
27
OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA - 8
4822-7525-1905v.3 0050033-000558

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
L AW O FFICE S
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

SPD Has Failed To Provide Clear and Convincing Evidence of
Heightened Relevance or Critical Need for the Requested Information
SPD has not shown that the material demanded in the Subpoena is both “highly material
and relevant” and “critical or necessary” to any prosecution. RCW 5.68.010(2)(b). To satisfy
these standards, SPD must establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that its case “virtually
rises or falls with the admission or exclusion” of the evidence sought from the press. In re
Application to Quash Subpoena to Nat'l Broad. Co., 79 F.3d 346, 351 (2d Cir. 1996)
(interpreting shield law similar to RCW 5.68.010) (internal quotations omitted). Moreover,
“there must be a showing of actual relevance; a showing of potential relevance will not
suffice.” Shoen v. Shoen, 48 F.3d 412, 416 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Shoen II”) (emphasis added).
This heightened relevance standard requires more than just an assertion that a fishing
expedition of unaired news footage might lead to something relevant. In United States v.
Thompson, 2015 WL 1608462, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 10, 2015), for example, a criminal defendant
sought to subpoena a news crew’s footage of his arrest, arguing it would disprove probable
cause. The court quashed the subpoena, finding the assertion insufficient to breach the
journalist’s privilege because it was “speculative – whether or not the footage actually shows this
information appears to be pure conjecture and merely exploratory at this point. Without more of
a showing, the Court cannot conclude that this footage is necessarily ‘highly relevant’.” Id.
Another court applying the heightened relevance element held an “open ended request for
unaired video footage that has nothing to do with [the party in question] fail[s] to make the
requisite showing. . . . Speculating about possible relevance, rather than showing actual
relevance, is not enough to compel journalists to empty their newsroom files.” Flynn v.
Roanoke Companies Grp., 2007 WL 4564113, at *3 (N.D. Ga. Dec. 21, 2007) (emphasis added).
Like the party issuing the subpoena in Flynn, SPD “cannot, and does not, explain why
every piece of unaired footage is either relevant or [] necessary.” Id. Indeed, SPD’s supporting
affidavit shows no basis for it to assert that the unpublished information it seeks will provide any
clearer image of the one at-large suspect it seeks to identify, or any better evidence of the
OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA - 9
4822-7525-1905v.3 0050033-000558

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
L AW O FFICE S
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax

 1 felonies it claims to be investigating, than the numerous published images it already possesses.
2 At best, SPD speculates that forcing every major newsroom in town to empty its files of all
3 unpublished material might lead to something useful. That is insufficient as a matter of law to
4 show that its Subpoena seeks “highly material and relevant” and “critical or necessary”
5 information.
6
7
8

SPD Has Not Presented Clear and Convincing Evidence That It Has
Exhausted Alternative Sources
SPD also fails to meet its burden to show it “has exhausted all reasonable and available

9 means to obtain [the information] from alternative sources.” RCW 5.68.010(2)(b)(iii). A party’s
10 burden to exhaust alternatives sources is “very substantial.” Clampitt, 98 Wn.2d at 644.
11 “[C]ourts should do their utmost to avoid the need for reporter disclosure, ordering it only as a
12 last resort” and only after “the court is absolutely convinced” that the privilege has been
13 overcome. Id. at 643. See also Schoen I, 5 F.3d at 1295 (refusing to compel book author to
14 testify because plaintiffs had not deposed defendant about statements he made to author)
15

Here, SPD has not shown that it has done its utmost to avoid seeking unpublished news

16 material. It asserts that it “has been reviewing” surveillance footage from nearby businesses.
17 Aff. at 15. But there is no indication SPD has exhausted that process. Nor has SPD suggested it
18 has exhausted other sources of images, such as publicly available social media posts from the
19 heavily-recorded events of May 30. SPD’s supporting affidavit fails to state whether it has
20 publicized the images it already possesses to seek the public’s help in identifying the one at-large
21 suspect. Nor has SPD indicated whether it has completed its interviews of the many witnesses to
22 the events described in its supporting affidavit. In short, SPD has not satisfied its burden, much
23 less by clear and convincing evidence, that it exhausted every available source of the information
24 it seeks before it made its demand to the News Media.
25
26
27
OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA - 10
4822-7525-1905v.3 0050033-000558

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
L AW O FFICE S
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax

 1

The Public Interest, Particularly in Protecting Journalists Who Cover
Civil Unrest, Requires Enforcing the Privilege.

2

SPD also fails to meet the final element of the shield statute: it has not shown clear and

3

4 convincing evidence of “a compelling public interest” in requiring disclosure of the requested
5 unpublished news materials. RCW 5.68.010(2)(b)(iv). To the contrary, its Subpoena
6 undermines the public interest in assuring that journalists can safely and effectively report on
7 events like those that unfolded in Seattle on and after May 30.
The Legislature has made clear that the public interest supports protecting non-party

8

9 news media from subpoenas in all but the most exceptional cases. These public interests include
10 protecting journalists from “the disadvantage of . . . appearing to be an investigative arm of the
11 judicial system or a research tool of government.” Shoen I, 5 F.3d at 1294-95 (citation omitted).
12 Permitting the press to be seen as an adjunct of the police interferes with its ability to report
13 accurate information to the public. It fosters distrust among potential sources and can lead to
14 journalists being “physically harassed” when covering public gatherings Id. at 1295.
These are not idle concerns. Reporters who collaborate with law enforcement have been

15

4
16 the target of vandalism and harassment. But even the perception that journalists operate as

17 arms of the police poses a risk to journalists – a risk that, in the specific context of covering
18 protests and civil unrests, includes a danger of physical harm. See Gawlowski Decl. ¶ 6. The
19 News Media encountered these risks over and over again covering the events on and after May
20 30. One news photographer was hit in the head with a rock thrown by protesters, and later
21 punched in the face by a protester. See id. ¶ 7. Other journalists were told by demonstrators that
22 they did not want their photographs taken because they feared identification or police retaliation
23 if they were recorded. Id. At least one news station hired a private security contractor to protect
24
25

4

See, e.g., “Olympian newspaper disciplines photographer,” Seattle Times (July 12, 2011)
26 (after photojournalist shared unpublished photos of violent protesters with police, both his home
and newspaper’s office were vandalized), available at https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle27 news/olympian-newspaper-disciplines-photographer/.
OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA - 11
4822-7525-1905v.3 0050033-000558

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
L AW O FFICE S
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax

 1 its news crew. Aff. at 4. Journalists faced numerous incidents of protesters attempting to block
2 cameras or interfere with their ability to provide news coverage.5
Similarly, in covering the “Capitol Hill Occupied Protest,” journalists have had to explain

3

4 repeatedly that they are independent from the police, and that journalists do not serve as an
5 extension of law enforcement. Gawlowski Decl. ¶ 8. These assurances are instrumental in
6 enabling journalists to gain trust with protesters so that they can safely and accurately report
7 news from the protest zone. Id. The perception that the News Media is cooperating with police
8 investigations would subvert that effort, degrade trust in journalists, and undermine their ability
9 to inform the public. Id.
In sum, SPD cannot show by clear and convincing evidence that enforcing the Subpoena

10

11 is the public interest. The Subpoena poses a substantial risk both to the physical safety of
12 journalists, and to their ability to inform the public effectively. Id. ¶ 9.
13

C.

14

In addition to being contrary to the shield law, the subpoena should be quashed for a

The Subpoena Is Overbroad and Unduly Burdensome

15 more basic reason: it is flagrantly overbroad and would subject the News Media to an undue
16 burden. CR 26(c); Jimenez v. City of Chicago, 733 F. Supp. 2d 1268, 1273 (W.D. Wash. 2010)
17 (quashing subpoena as unduly burdensome, as well as violating the journalist’s privilege).
The Subpoena’s scope is overbroad. SPD’s affidavit focuses on two individuals, readily

18

19 identifiable by their clothing – one of whom is already in custody. See Aff. at 11, 14, 15. Yet
20 the Subpoena is not limited to these individuals, or even to individuals suspected of committing a
21 felony (as required to permit a news media subpoena under RCW 10.79.015(3)). Instead, the
22 Subpoena seeks all of the News Media’s footage and images, depicting thousands of individuals
23 attending a mass demonstration and its aftermath. No basis exists for SPD to demand that
24 journalists turn over material identifying individuals who are not even suspected of wrongdoing.
25
26

5

One example of a news crew facing such harassment while broadcasting live can be seen at
27 3:00 to 3:30 in the news video at https://twitter.com/johncolucci/status/1266918131529691137.
OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA - 12
4822-7525-1905v.3 0050033-000558

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
L AW O FFICE S
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax

 Second, the Subpoena seeks a vast amount of footage and images from dozens of

1

2 individual journalists. See Gawlowski Decl. ¶ 5 (noting the Times alone had 15 journalists
3 covering the events). Responding to the Subpoena would be exceedingly disruptive and
4 burdensome to Seattle’s five major newsrooms. It would interfere with regular news reporting –
5 a particular concern in light of diminished newsroom resources, increased workloads, and the
6 burdens of covering the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic – and would require each journalist to
7 search for images spread out across multiple platforms. Id. Identifying responsive material also
8 would require hours of time from editors and production staff. Id.
9

VI.

CONCLUSION

The subpoena is procedurally improper under CR 45. It seeks information privileged

10

11 under RCW 5.68.010, and SPD has failed to meet its burden of showing, by clear and convincing
12 evidence, that the shield law’s protections do not apply. It also is unduly burdensome. For all of
13 these reasons, the Court should enter an order holding that the Subpoena is not enforceable.
14

---------------

15

I certify that this memorandum contains 4,123 words, in compliance with the Local Civil

16 Rules.
17

DATED this 29th day of June, 2020.

18

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
Attorneys for Seattle Times Co., Sinclair Media of
Seattle, LLC, KING Broadcasting Company, KIRO
TV, Inc. and Fox Television Stations, LLC

19
20
21

By Eric M. Stahl
Eric M. Stahl, WSBA #27619

22
23
24
25
26
27
OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA - 13
4822-7525-1905v.3 0050033-000558

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
L AW O FFICE S
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax

 1
2

DECLARATION OF SERVICE
The undersigned, hereby declares under the laws of the State of Washington, that on this

3 day he caused to be served, a copy of the foregoing document on the following counsel of record
4 in the manner indicated:
5 Brian W. Esler
[ ] Via First Class Mail
Miller
Nash
Graham
&
Dunn
LLP
[ ] Via Overnight Mail
6
Pier 70, 2801 Alaskan Way, Suite 300
[X] Via Email
Seattle,
WA
98121-1128
[ ] Via Messenger
7
brian.esler@millernash.com
8
DATED this 29th day of June, 2020, at Seattle, Washington.
9
10
/s/Eric M. Stahl
Eric M. Stahl, WSBA #27619

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA - 14
4822-7525-1905v.3 0050033-000558

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
L AW O FFICE S
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
206.622.3150 main · 206.757.7700 fax