United States District Court, W.D. Washington
KLINEDINST PC Gregor A. Hensrude KLEIN GLASSER PARK &
LOWE, P.L. Houston S. Park III Robert M. Klein, Lelia M.
Schleier Counsel for NonParty Schroeter Goldmark &
GREENSPOON MARDER LLP Richard W. Epstein (admitted pro hac
vice) Brian R. Cummings (admitted pro hac vice) STOEL RIVES
LLP Vanessa S. Power Counsel for Plaintiffs
STIPULATED MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE TO ORIGINATING
COURT (MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA)
HONORABLE ROBERT S. LASNIK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
to Rule 45(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and in
accordance with LCR 7(d)(1) and 10(g), the Plaintiffs
Westgate Resorts, Ltd., et al. ("Westgate"), and
the nonparty, Schroeter, Goldmark, & Bender PS
("SGB"), file this Stipulated Motion to Transfer
SGB's Non-Party Motion to Quash, Or, In the Alternative,
to Modify the Plaintiffs' Subpoena to Produce Documents
("Motion to Quash") (Dkt. 1) to the originating
filed this action pursuant to its Motion to Quash a subpoena
for documents served by Westgate that originated from the
above-referenced and underlying civil action pending in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida (the "Florida Case"). The Motion was filed
in this Court pursuant to Rule 45(d)(3)(A) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
a Washington law firm, was formerly a defendant in the
Florida Case represented by the same Florida attorneys
initiating this action through local counsel. SGB has since
been dismissed with prejudice from the Florida Case.
Westgate claims that its subpoena seeks documents relevant to
its claims in the Florida Case against Reed Hein &
Associates, LLC, d/b/a Timeshare Exit Team ("TET"),
for alleged false, misleading, and deceptive advertising and
tortious interference with Westgate's contracts with
timeshare owners who use TET's timeshare "exit"
services, including communications with law firms such as
Through its Motion, SBG seeks to quash or modify
Westgate's subpoena generally on two grounds: (1) that it
is overly broad and imposes an undue burden on SGB; and (2)
that it seeks documents SGB contends are protected by the
attorney-client and/or work product privileges, pursuant to
assertions by SGB of having rendered legal services for
timeshare owners who were customers of TET and who authorized
TET as their attorney-in-fact to retain SGB as legal counsel
on their behalf.
Since this action was commenced, counsel for Westgate and SGB
have conferred by telephone on several occasions and resolved
all issues raised by the Motion except for the claims of
privilege, which they agree would most effectively and
efficiently be resolved in the Florida Case because:
district judge in the Florida Case, Hon. Gregory Presnell,
has previously addressed privilege issues raised by both SGB
and TET to withhold discovery sought by another timeshare
company. See Orange Lake County Club, Inc., et al. v.
Reed Hein & Assocs., LLC, et al., No.
17-cv-1542-Orl-31DCI (M.D. Fla.) (“Orange
is actively defending claims asserted against it in a third
civil action against TET pending before Judge Presnell,
Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc. et al v. Reed Hein &
Assocs. LLC, No. 18-cv-02171-ORL-31DCI. SGB anticipates
asserting similar claims of privilege in that case and likely
requiring a ruling from Judge Presnell.
addition to the three above-referenced civil actions pending
against TET, Judge Presnell, as well as Magistrate Judge
Daniel C. Irick, have presided over other civil actions
brought by timeshare companies including Westgate against
other timeshare "exit" companies or law firms
allegedly retained on behalf of timeshare owners over the
past two years. As such, they have become intimately familiar
with the various facts, claims, defenses, and discovery
issues arising from this particular "brand" of
litigation, as well as many of the applicable parties and
their attorneys, including the undersigned.
Accordingly, Westgate and SGB respectfully submit the
transfer of SGB's Motion to Quash to the Middle District
of Florida would further the interests of judicial economy
and protect against the possibility of inconsistent rulings
by consolidating all of SGB's claims of privilege before
a single court that has previously addressed some of the same
or similar issues and likely will do so again in another
Westgate and SGB further submit that the transfer of
SGB's Motion to Quash to the originating Court is
appropriate pursuant to Rule 45(f) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. As the party subject to the subpoena, SGB,
consents to the transfer; the parties are currently
represented by Florida counsel both in this matter and in
other cases pending in the Middle District of ...