Parker Hannifin Corporation v. Standard Motor Products Inc

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 AT SEATTLE PARKER HANNIFIN CORPORATION, Plaintiff, C21-969 TSZ v. MINUTE ORDER STANDARD MOTOR PRODUCTS INC., 12 Defendant.

The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge: (1) The Court held a telephone hearing on Wednesday, July 28, 2021, with the parties in connection with the Motion to Compel, docket no. 1, and the Motion to Quash, docket 2. For the reasons stated on the record, the Motion to Quash filed by MacKenzie and Manlowe is DENIED. SMP’s Motion to Compel Attendance at a Deposition by Non-Parties Nicole MacKenzie and Robert Manlowe is GRANTED as follows: (a) The Court concludes that the Shelton1 test does not apply to the depositions of MacKenzie and Manlowe. “[W]hen a party seeks to depose a lawyer who is not serving as opposing counsel or who is not currently involved in the litigation, the court may decline to apply Shelton.” Abington Emersion Cap., LLC v. Landash Corp., No. 2:17-cv-143, 2019 WL 3779779, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 12, 2019). Because MacKenzie and Manlowe are not “opposing counsel” for purposes of the Ohio litigation, Shelton v. Am. Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323 (8th Cir. 1986).

1 the important purposes of Shelton, namely preventing harassment of opposing counsel and preventing questioning that would expose litigation strategy, are not implicated. See Abington Emersion Cap., LLC, 2019 WL 3779779, at *2; Hedden v. City of Seattle, No. C05-999Z, 2006 WL 8454826, at *5 (W.D. Wash. May 3, 2006). MacKenzie and Manlowe do not otherwise meet their burden to show good cause for quashing the Motion to Compel. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(c)(1). (b) The Court additionally concludes that the depositions of MacKenzie and Manlowe are relevant because they represented Parker Hannafin and SMP jointly in the Barr suit, as well as other EIS-related asbestos litigation. Due to joint representation, communications of either co-client with their lawyer are not privileged as between the co-clients in a subsequent adverse proceeding. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Greenwich Ins. Co., No. C07-2065-JCC, 2008 WL 11343685, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 25, 2008).

Therefore, communications between MacKenzie or Manlowe with Parker Hannafin in the Barr suit or in other cases in which they jointly represented SMP and Parker Hannafin are not privileged. SMP has represented that it does not seek testimony from MacKenzie or Manlowe about their representation of Parker Hannafin in cases in which SMP was not a party. SMP Brief in Opposition (docket no. 13 at 4). (c) In their Motion to Quash, docket no. 2, MacKenzie and Manlowe propose limitations to narrow the scope of their depositions. The Court will narrow the scope of the depositions as follows: (i) During the depositions, should a party lodge an objection based on privilege; the other party will respect the objection, and the Ohio Court will rule on whether the privilege can be waived.

14 (ii) Manlowe will provide testimony concerning the Barr litigation and his role in providing Trial Coordination Services for SMP until December 15, 2018. MacKenzie will provide testimony concerning the Barr litigation until she stopped her joint representation. (iii) Neither Manlowe nor MacKenzie will provide testimony concerning any non-EIS asbestos cases where Parker Hannafin is or was defended by Williams Kastner. (2) The Motion to Seal, docket no. 6, filed by MacKenzie and Manlowe is GRANTED. // // // 1 (3) The deposition of MacKenzie shall occur on July 29, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. and the deposition of Manlowe shall occur on July 30, 2021 at 9:00 a.m., subject to the parties obtaining an extension of not more than three weeks from the Ohio Court. Both depositions are limited to seven hours.

Dated this 29th day of July, 2021.

Ravi Subramanian Clerk s/Gail Glass Deputy Clerk