GRANTING MOTION TO PUBLISH OPINION
Appellant filed a motion to publish the court's February
20, 2018 opinion. Respondent has filed a response stating it
has no opposition to the motion. Following consideration of
the motion, the panel has determined the motion should be
granted. Now, therefore, it is hereby
that the appellant's motion to publish is granted.
appeals concern the State's attempt to compel attorney
David Trieweiler to produce a letter written by his former
client, Earl Rogers, to the victim of his alleged felony
75828-4-I, Trieweiler appeals the trial court's order
finding him in contempt for failing to produce the letter. He
argues the court's subpoena duces tecum is invalid
because it exceeds the scope of criminal discovery and seeks
privileged or protected information. In No. 75722-9-I, Rogers
challenges the court's denial of the motion to quash the
subpoena on the same grounds. Because the two cases involve
the same legal issues and facts, we issue a single opinion.
subpoena was not challenged before the trial court on the
basis that it exceeded the scope of criminal discovery. We
decline to reach this unpreserved claim of error.
was not the recipient of the letter. He obtained the letter
from a third party. Even assuming the client mentioned the
letter to his attorney, the attorney-client privilege does
not extend to objects obtained from third parties. The letter
is not protected by attorney-client privilege.
does not preclude Trieweiler from producing the letter to
comply with a court order. Because the State has a legitimate
interest in the letter and disclosure has little impact on
the attorney-client relationship, the trial court did not
abuse its discretion when it ordered Trieweiler to disclose
was charged with felony telephone harassment for threatening
to kill Manesbia Pierce, his girlfriend's mother. He was
represented by Trieweiler.
the case was pending, the State became aware of a letter
Rogers had written and mailed to Pierce's daughter,
Timothea Marshall. Marshall gave the original letter to
Pierce. Pierce gave a copy of the letter to Trieweiler.
Pierce told the prosecutor Rogers apologized in the letter
and offered to pay her to drop the charges. It is undisputed
that neither Marshall nor Pierce possess the original or a
full copy of the handwritten letter.
March 2016, the court removed Trieweiler as Rogers'
attorney. In June 2016, the trial court issued a subpoena
duces tecum for Trieweiler to produce documents, including
the letter. On Trieweiler's motion to quash, the court
narrowed the scope of the subpoena but still required
Trieweiler to produce the letter. When he failed to produce
it, the court found him in contempt.
appeals the contempt order. Rogers appeals the denial of the
motion to quash.
argues the trial court abused its discretion when it denied
the motion to quash the subpoena. Trieweiler contends the
trial court abused its discretion when it found him ...