Background
The Junior Volleyball Association offered professional beach volleyball player and coach Chris Hannemann a position as its beach coordinator. After Hannemann signed the contract, JVA rescinded the offer because an unidentified person had made allegedly harmful statements about him.
Before filing a defamation action, Hannemann petitioned under Washington Civil Rule 27 to depose a JVA organizational representative through written questions. He sought the identities of those who contacted JVA and details of their statements. An anonymous objector opposed the petition and moved to quash the proposed subpoena. The trial court denied the petition and granted the motion to quash.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Hannemann failed to make the required preliminary showing that JVA or the desired testimony was at risk of becoming unavailable before suit could be filed. JVA’s location outside Washington and its move from Wisconsin to Illinois did not establish unavailability, particularly because Hannemann had previously served JVA through its registered agent and contemplated using interstate subpoena procedures.
The departure of JVA president Jennifer Hahn likewise did not show that the requested organizational testimony would be lost. A corporation must prepare a designated representative to testify about information known or reasonably available to it, and Hannemann did not establish that Hahn alone possessed the relevant information or faced circumstances suggesting future unavailability. The court emphasized that CR 27 preserves testimony at genuine risk of loss; it is not a presuit discovery device for identifying potential defendants or determining whether a cause of action exists.
Key Takeaways
- A CR 27 petitioner must make a concrete, preliminary showing that testimony is at risk of becoming unavailable before an action can be filed.
- An organization’s out-of-state location, interstate relocation, or leadership change does not by itself establish that its testimony will be unavailable.
- CR 27 cannot be used merely to discover the identities of potential defendants or obtain facts needed to decide whom to sue.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the narrow role of presuit depositions in Washington. Parties may use CR 27 to preserve known testimony threatened by illness, flight, relocation, or comparable circumstances, but not as a substitute for ordinary discovery or as an investigative tool for constructing a claim.
The court left unresolved the parties’ other disputes, including whether Hannemann could already file suit and whether efforts to identify the anonymous speakers would encounter First Amendment protections. The failure to demonstrate a genuine risk of unavailability was independently sufficient to affirm.