 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
King v. Olympic Pipe Line Co.12/26/2000
ay provide a significantly different framework for going forward. The protective order remedy can be used with some creativity, and can be utilized in preference to or following a stay. With issues as complex as these, discovery management decisions are likely to be revisited as new events or the passage of time have changed the picture.
As a final matter, we observe that in granting a protective order to a non- party witness while this review was pending, the trial court decided a matter pending on appeal in violation of RAP 7.2. We therefore vacated that order and stayed further discovery. It is of interest that the court found the order justified for apparently the same reasons advanced by Petitioners: to conceal invocation of the privilege. The court distinguished the two results by pointing to Petitioners' party status.
While we too discern a difference in that the non-party has no legal interest in the civil litigation, we are concerned that the difference in party status, standing alone, may not justify a completely different result where constitutional rights and criminal jeopardy are at stake.
CONCLUSION
We remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. The stay of discovery previously entered is hereby lifted.
WE CONCUR:
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|