Asarco LLC v. Loren M. Cohen

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE ASARCO LLC, CASE NO. C24-6060-JCC Plaintiff, ORDER v. LOREN M. COHEN, Defendant.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees (Dkt. No. 43).

Having thoroughly considered the briefing and record, the Court DENIES the motion for the reasons described herein.

Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. No. 43) followed Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(4) request that Defendant’s deposition be taken by remote means (Dkt. No. 6). Defendant withdrew that request before it noted, after the Court advised Defendant he would need to demonstrate compelling circumstances to warrant such relief. (See Dkt. No. 38 at 3.) Plaintiff suggests that because Defendant (a) made the request in the first place and (b) waited 11 days to withdraw the request (following the Court’s warning) Defendant unnecessarily burdened Plaintiff; thus, attorney fees are warranted. (See Dkt. Nos. 43 at 4–5, 48 at 2) (citing, e.g., Nguyen v. Mercer Island Boys Basketball Booster Club, 2025 WL 774901, slip op. at 1 (W.D. Wash. 2025). In response, Defendant suggests that Rule 26(c)(3) relief does not apply to a Rule 30(b)(4) motion and, even if it did, Plaintiff’s request was substantially justified. (See Dkt. No. 45 at 3–5.) The Court need not address whether Rule 26(c)(3) is, indeed, implicated here because, even if it were, given the circumstances outlined in Plaintiff’s response, (see id. at 4–5), the Court agrees that the request was substantially justified. Nor would awarding fees be just in this instance, where Defendant did, in fact, withdraw his Rule 30(b)(4) shortly after the Court advised him how it would look upon it.

7 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for fees (Dkt. No. 43) is DENIED.

9 It is so ORDERED this 22nd day of December 2025.

A John C. Coughenour 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE