Case 2:16-cv-00453-RJS-BCW Document 21 Filed 07/21/16 Page 1 of 16

David J. Jordan (1751)

David J. Williams (9186)
Jordan C. Bledsoe (15545)
STOEL RIVES LLP
201 S. Main Street, Suite 1100
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 328-3131
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DISTRICT
THE CORPORATION OF THE
PRESIDENT OF THE CHURCH OF
JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY
SAINTS, a Utah Corporation sole; LDS
FAMILY SERVICES, a Utah Non-Profit
Corporation,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No. 2:16-cv-00453-RJS

MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND
FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER
AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM
Judge Robert J. Shelby
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells

RJ, MM, BN, LK, individuals,

Defendants.
The Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and
LDS Family Services (LDSFS) (together, the Church Entities), by and through their
counsel, respectfully submit this Motion to Quash Subpoena and For Entry of Protective Order
and Supporting Memorandum (the Motion).

87036278.1 0056812-00002

Case 2:16-cv-00453-RJS-BCW Document 21 Filed 07/21/16 Page 2 of 16

INTRODUCTION
Defendants RJ, MM, BN, and LK (collectively, Defendants) have filed claims against
the Church Entities in the Navajo Nation District Court (the Tribal Court) seeking damages
for alleged child abuse occurring decades ago while they were living with host families in Utah
as part of the Indian Student Placement Program (the ISPP). In response, the Church Entities
commenced the present action seeking a declaration that the Tribal Court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction over them. Whether the Tribal Court may properly exercise jurisdiction over the
Church Entities is the only issue in this case.
Defendants have issued a deposition subpoena (the Subpoena) for President Thomas
S. Monson, the president and ecclesiastical leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints (the LDS Church), a worldwide organization with over 15 million members. In
justification of their discovery demand, Defendants claim that President Monson has unique
information concerning the jurisdictional facts in this case. Nothing could be further from the
truth.
The only connection President Monson has to this case is that he happened to be a
senior leader of the LDS Church during the time period Defendants allege they were abused.
Defendants do not claim that President Monson, in his role as an LDS Church leader, had
responsibility for the administration of the ISPP. Nor do Defendants suggest that President
Monson has personal knowledge of their participation in the ISPP or of their alleged abuse. In
fact, President Monson has no knowledge of facts bearing on the Tribal Courts jurisdiction.
The Church Entities do not oppose limited discovery on the jurisdictional issues in this

2
87036278.1 0056812-00002

Case 2:16-cv-00453-RJS-BCW Document 21 Filed 07/21/16 Page 3 of 16

case. 1 Accordingly, the Church Entities offered to make available a 30(b)(6) witness with
personal knowledge of relevant facts to be deposed. Defendants counsel declined and insisted
on deposing President Monson.
Defendants discovery strategy is inconsistent with established case law that bars
deposing a senior entity officer unless relevant evidence cannot be obtained in the first instance
from a lower-level employee. The sound policy underlying that rule is to prevent undue
burden on an apex officer and to discourage subversion of the discovery process to gain some
perceived leverage or tactical advantage. Those concerns are particularly applicable here. As
such, the Court should quash the Subpoena and enter a protective order barring President
Monsons deposition.
STATEMENT OF RELIEF SOUGHT AND GROUNDS THEREFOR
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b) and 45(d), the Church Entities move
for (a) an order quashing the Subpoena commanding President Monson to testify at deposition,
and (b) entry of a protective order barring President Monsons deposition. 2 The grounds for the
Church Entities Motion are as follows 3:

It is the Church Entities position that the relevant jurisdictional facts are undisputed,
i.e., that no abuse occurred on the Navajo reservation, and Defendants were all placed in host
homes off the reservation.
2

It is unclear why Defendants have subpoenaed President Monson rather than simply
noticing his deposition as an officer of a party entity. To address that eventuality, the Church
Entities are moving both to quash the Subpoena and for entry of a protective order.
3

The Subpoena is also improper as premature. Generally, a party may not seek
discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as required by Rule 26(f) unless
authorized by a court order or agreement of the parties. Living Scriptures v. Doe(s), No.
1:10CV0182 DB, 2010 WL 4687679, at *1 (D. Utah Nov. 10, 2010) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
(continued . . .)
3
87036278.1 0056812-00002

Case 2:16-cv-00453-RJS-BCW Document 21 Filed 07/21/16 Page 4 of 16

1.

Defendants do not (and cannot) allege that President Monson has unique
personal knowledge of relevant jurisdictional facts in this case;

2.

Defendants have not sought to conduct discovery through less burdensome

means by deposing lower-level employees with relevant knowledge;

3.

President Monsons deposition would be unduly burdensome; and

4.

President Monsons deposition is sought for an improper purpose.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Defendants File Actions Against the Church Entities in Tribal Court

1.

The Church Entities were sued in three separate actions in Tribal Court by

Defendants, who are members of the Navajo tribe. See Second Amended Complaint for
Declaratory Judgment (Second Am. Compl.) (Dkt. 17), at Exhibits A-C.
2.

Defendants assert that between 1965 and 1972 (BN), 1976 and 1983 (RJ and

MM), and 1978 and 1979 (LK) they participated in the ISPP. They allege that as part of the
ISPP they agreed to be placed in the homes of host families outside the Navajo reservation to
attend public school, and that, while living in those homes, they were sexually assaulted. See RJ
and MM Am. Compl. 7, 14-24, 27, attached as Exhibit A to Second Am. Compl.; BN Compl.
6, 13-18, 21, attached as Exhibit B to Second Am. Compl.; LK Compl. 8, 13-18, 20,
attached as Exhibit C to Second Am. Compl.

(. . . continued)
26(d)). The parties here have not had a Rule 26(f) conference, and Defendants have not moved
for expedited discovery.

4
87036278.1 0056812-00002

Case 2:16-cv-00453-RJS-BCW Document 21 Filed 07/21/16 Page 5 of 16

The Church Entities Commence an Action Seeking a Declaration that the Tribal Court
Lacks Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
3.

On May 31, 2016, the Church Entities commenced this action by filing a

Complaint for Declaratory Judgment seeking a declaration that the Tribal Court lacks subjectmatter jurisdiction over the Church Entities. See Dkt. 2. The Church Entities also moved for a
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction precluding Defendants from pursuing
their claims in Tribal Court. See Dkt. 3.
4.

After BN and LK filed their own complaints in Tribal Court, the Church Entities

Amended their Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Motion for Preliminary Injunction to
include them. See Dkt. 17, 19. The Court is scheduled to hear the Church Entities Motion for
Preliminary Injunction on August 22, 2016.
Defendants Seek to Depose President Monson
5.

On June 24, 2016, counsel for Defendants sent a letter (the June 24 Letter)

and subpoena to counsel for the Church Entities. Defendants counsel subsequently sent an
amended subpoena (the Subpoena) commanding President Monsons appearance for a
deposition on August 4, 2016. A copy of the June 24 Letter and the Subpoena are attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
6.

The June 24 Letter described Defendants purported grounds for seeking

President Monsons deposition:

We believe President Monson has unique information about allegations in the
aforementioned [declaratory judgment] complaint. For example, this complaint argues
that jurisdiction doesnt extend to activities of nonmembers of the tribe and that case
law doesnt allow Indian tribes to exercise civil jurisdiction over the activities or
conduct of non-Indians occurring outside their reservations. However, there are facts
contrary to these claims that we believe President Monson is aware of.

5
87036278.1 0056812-00002

Case 2:16-cv-00453-RJS-BCW Document 21 Filed 07/21/16 Page 6 of 16

Ex. A.
7.

The statements in the declaratory judgment complaint to which Defendants refer

are actually quotes from relevant case law, not factual averments about which President Monson
would have some unique information. See Second Am. Compl. (Dkt. 17) 19-20.
President Monson Lacks Knowledge of the Relevant Jurisdictional Facts
8.

LDS Social Services (now known as LDS Family Services) administered the

ISPP. Declaration of Roger Van Komen (Van Komen Decl.) 2, attached as Exhibit B.
9.

LDS Social Services employees in Salt Lake City and its Utah regional offices

(off the reservation) made ISPP placement decisions concerning Navajo tribal members placed in
Utah. Id. 4.
10.

Defendants assert that President Monson was a senior LDS Church leader during

the time that Defendants were allegedly abused while participating in the ISPP. June 24 Letter at
2-3. They further claim that, given his leadership position, President Monson would likely have
information relative to the claims his corporation is making. Id.
11.

But, President Monsons responsibilities as a senior leader of the LDS Church

during the relevant time period (or at any other time) did not include oversight of the ISPP. Van
Komen Decl. 5.
12.

And, in his position as a senior leader of the LDS Church during the time period

in this case, President Monson would not have been advised of the particulars of Defendants
participation in the ISPP. Id.
13.

More importantly, the alleged tortious conduct of placing Defendants in the

homes of unsuitable host families where they claim they were abused did not occur on the

6
87036278.1 0056812-00002

Case 2:16-cv-00453-RJS-BCW Document 21 Filed 07/21/16 Page 7 of 16

reservation. In fact, all of the placements were in homes off the reservation. See Second Am.
Compl. (Dkt. 17) 9-10. No act of abuse is alleged to have occurred on the reservation. Id.
10.
President Monsons Current Responsibilities
14.

President Monson is the president and ecclesiastical leader of the LDS Church, a

worldwide organization with more than 15 million members. 4

15.

President Monson is the highest-ranking official of the LDS Church. In his

position, President Monson presides over the members of the LDS Church.
RULE 26(c) CERTIFICATION
In an effort to avoid having to bring the present motion, the Church Entities counsel
conferred with William Keeler, counsel for Defendants, regarding Defendants proposed
deposition of President Monson. Specifically, the Church Entities counsel explained that
President Monson lacks knowledge of the relevant facts and offered to make available a
30(b)(6) witness with personal knowledge of the administration of the ISPP. Defendants
counsel rejected that offer and insisted on deposing President Monson.
LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the court may, for
good cause, issue a protective order to protect a party or person from annoyance,
embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. Pia v. Supernova Media, Inc., 275

See The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Newsroom, Facts and Statistics
(last visited July 11, 2016), http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/facts-and-statistics (stating the
total Church membership is 15,634,199).

7
87036278.1 0056812-00002

Case 2:16-cv-00453-RJS-BCW Document 21 Filed 07/21/16 Page 8 of 16

F.R.D. 559, 560 (D. Utah 2011) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)). Under the rule, the party
seeking protection has the burden to show good cause for the relief sought. Id.; Rohrbough v.
Harris, 549 F.3d 1313, 1321 (10th Cir. 2008) (The good cause standard of Rule 26(c) is
highly flexible, having been designed to accommodate all relevant interests as they arise.
(citation omitted)).
Similarly, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3)(A)(iv) states, On timely motion,
the court for the district where compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that
. . . subjects a person to undue burden. It further provides, A party or attorney responsible
for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden
or expense on a person subject to the subpoena. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(1).
ARGUMENT
I.

GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO ISSUE A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND QUASH

DEFENDANTS SUBPOENA.
Courts have consistently held that good cause exists to enter a protective order barring

the deposition of an individual holding a high-level corporate position, such as President

Monson, where
(1) the executive has no unique personal knowledge of the matter in dispute; (2) the
information sought from the executive can be obtained from another witness; (3) the
information sought from the executive can be obtained through an alternative
discovery method; or (4) sitting for the deposition is a severe hardship for the
executive in light of his obligations to his company.
Asarco LLC v. Noranda Mining, Inc., No. 2:12-CV-00527, 2015 WL 1924882, at *3 (D. Utah
Apr. 28, 2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted; emphasis added); Turner v. City of
Detroit, No. CIV.A. 11-12961, 2012 WL 4839139, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 11, 2012)
(recognizing that satisfaction of any of the above factors creates a rebuttable presumption that
8
87036278.1 0056812-00002

Case 2:16-cv-00453-RJS-BCW Document 21 Filed 07/21/16 Page 9 of 16

good cause exists to bar the deposition of a high-ranking corporate executive, which
presumption must be overcome by the deposing party (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted)).
Here, good cause exists for the entry of a protective order and to quash Defendants
Subpoena because (1) President Monson does not have direct personal knowledge of the facts
of this case; (2) Defendants have not sought and have declined to conduct discovery using less
intrusive means by deposing lower-level employees with relevant personal knowledge; (3)
President Monsons deposition would be unduly burdensome; and (4) President Monsons
deposition is sought for an improper purpose.
A.

President Monson Does Not Possess Information Relevant to Defendants

Claims.

[W]hen a party seeks to depose high-level decisionmakers who are removed from the
daily subjects of the litigation, the party must first demonstrate that the would-be deponent has
unique personal knowledge of the matter in issue. Baine v. Gen. Motors Corp., 141 F.R.D.
332, 334 (M.D. Ala. 1991) (citing and quoting Cmty. Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn v. Fed. Home Loan
Bank Bd., 96 F.R.D. 619, 621-22 (D.D.C. 1983)). What is more, the unique personal
knowledge must be truly uniquethe deposition would not be allowed where the information
could be had through interrogatories, deposition of a designated spokesperson, or deposition
testimony of other persons. Id.; see also Reif v. CNA, 248 F.R.D. 448, 451 (E.D. Pa. 2008)
(recognizing that Courts deciding the issue of whether to permit the deposition of high-ranking
corporate executives . . . have focused their decisions on whether the executives [sic] possess
personal or superior knowledge).

9
87036278.1 0056812-00002

Case 2:16-cv-00453-RJS-BCW Document 21 Filed 07/21/16 Page 10 of 16

Courts routinely grant protective orders barring the depositions of high-level corporate
officers who lack direct personal knowledge of the facts of a case. See, e.g., Thomas v. Intl Bus.
Machines, 48 F.3d 478, 483 (10th Cir. 1995) (granting protective order in age discrimination
case preventing deposition of IBMs chairman, in part, because he lacked personal knowledge of
the employees claims); Lewelling v. Farmers Ins. of Columbus, Inc., 879 F.2d 212, 218 (6th Cir.
1989) (affirming grant of protective order barring plaintiffs from deposing their employers CEO
who lacked knowledge regarding pertinent facts of the dispute); Salter v. Upjohn Co., 593 F.2d
649, 651 (5th Cir. 1979) (requiring plaintiff to demonstrate corporate executive had personal
knowledge and lower-level employees lacked knowledge before permitting executives
deposition); Evans v. Allstate Ins. Co., 216 F.R.D. 515, 518 (N.D. Okla. 2003) (granting
protective order prohibiting the depositions of defendants corporate executives because they had
no personal knowledge of the facts of the case).
The single issue in this case is whether the Tribal Court may exercise subject-matter
jurisdiction over the Church Entities. To establish Tribal Court jurisdiction, Defendants must
show, as a threshold matter, that the Church Entities engaged in actionable conduct on the
reservation. Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544, 565 (1981) (Indian tribes retain inherent
sovereign power to exercise some forms of civil jurisdiction over non-Indians on their
reservations. (emphasis added)). The only facts potentially relevant to that issue concern
where the conduct giving rise to Defendants abuse and negligence claims occurred. The most
Defendants can offer in that regard is a general statement that President Monson was a senior
leader of the LDS Church during the time that Defendants were participants in the ISPP.
Defendants do not (and cannot) allege that President Monson has unique personal knowledge of

10
87036278.1 0056812-00002

Case 2:16-cv-00453-RJS-BCW Document 21 Filed 07/21/16 Page 11 of 16

facts pertaining to this case. See June 24 Letter at 1-3. Defendants do not contend that President
Monson has any unique information related to the administration of the ISPP or that he had any
responsibility over that program. Id. Nor do Defendants claim that President Monson has
personal knowledge of their participation in the ISPP or their alleged abuse. Id. The fact is that
President Monsons responsibilities as a senior leader of the LDS Church did not include
oversight of the ISPP. 5 Van Komen Decl. 5. Further, President Monson would not have been
advised of the particulars of Defendants participation in the ISPP. 6 Id.
Simply put, President Monson does not have the requisite personal knowledge to be
subjected to a deposition. The Church Entities Motion should be granted on this basis.
B.

Defendants Have Not Exhausted Less Intrusive Means Before Seeking to

Depose President Monson.

Courts have discretion to limit discovery where the discovery sought can be obtained
from some other source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i). Courts require a party seeking the deposition of a corporate officer to first
obtain discovery from lower-level employees where the corporate officer does not have unique
personal knowledge. See Thomas, 48 F.3d at 483 (granting defendants motion for protective

In an even greater stretch, Defendants argue that President Monson presumably has
information about the employment of George P. Lee with LDS Social Services prior to 1975.
Notably absent from Defendants complaints in their Tribal Court actions are any allegations that
George P. Lee played any role in their placement with host families.
6

In an ironic alternative argument, Defendants claim President Monsons lack of

knowledge is relevant. June 24 Letter at 2. That argument is baseless. What President Monson
does not know does not bear, in any respect, on whether the Tribal Court may exercise subjectmatter jurisdiction over the Church Entities.

11
87036278.1 0056812-00002

Case 2:16-cv-00453-RJS-BCW Document 21 Filed 07/21/16 Page 12 of 16

order barring deposition because plaintiff made no attempt to demonstrate that the information
she seeks to obtain from [IBMs chairman] could not be gathered from other IBM personnel, for
whom a deposition might have been less burdensome); Travelers Rental Co. v. Ford Motor Co.,
116 F.R.D. 140, 145 (D. Mass. 1987) (recognizing that there are a number of cases which
permit deferment of the depositions of higher executives until subordinates with supposedly
equal or greater knowledge have been deposed); M. A. Porazzi Co. v. The Mormaclark, 16
F.R.D. 383, 383 (S.D.N.Y. 1951) (denying request to depose vice president of company where
he could contribute nothing beyond that which would be gleaned from an examination of the
General Claims Agent).
Further, courts routinely require litigants to complete a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition before
allowing a high-level executives deposition to proceed. Abarca v. Merck & Co., No.
1:07CV0388 OWW DLB, 2009 WL 2390583, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2009) (holding plaintiff
seeking deposition of corporate officer failed to show it could not obtain the information it
sought through less intrusive means, in part, because no Rule 30(b)(6) deposition had been
completed); WebSideStory, Inc. v. NetRatings, Inc., No. 06CV408 WQH(AJB), 2007 WL
1120567, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 6, 2007) (requiring party to depose Rule 30(b)(6) witness before
taking deposition of corporate executive); Stone v. Morton Intl, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 498, 504 (D.
Utah 1997) (In determining what relief to allow, the court can consider whether the party
seeking the deposition has made an effort to obtain information under Rule 30(b)(6).).
Defendants have not sought to depose anyone in this case other than President Monson.
Nor have Defendants shown the need to depose President Monson because they cannot obtain
information elsewhere. Defendants have persisted in their discovery strategy despite being

12
87036278.1 0056812-00002

Case 2:16-cv-00453-RJS-BCW Document 21 Filed 07/21/16 Page 13 of 16

aware that lower-level LDS Church employees with personal knowledge of the relevant facts are
available for deposition. 7 Indeed, the Church Entities offered to designate a Rule 30(b)(6)
witness with personal knowledge to testify regarding the relevant facts. Defendants refused that
offer. Accordingly, Defendants should not be permitted to depose President Monson because
they have not sought to obtain the information through less intrusive means.
C.

President Monsons Deposition Is Unduly Burdensome.

The Court must quash or modify a subpoena that subjects a person to undue burden. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 45(d); Ahrens v. Ford Motor Co., 340 F.3d 1142, 1147 (10th Cir. 2003) (A courts
discretion to quash a discovery request due to . . . the overly burdensome nature of the request is
well established, particularly where the information is believed to be obtainable from another
source.). The deposition of a high-level officer is unduly burdensome if the officer does not
have personal or superior knowledge of the facts alleged and the information can be obtained
from lower-level employees. Minter v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 258 F.R.D. 118, 125-26 (D. Md.
2009); United States ex rel. Galmines v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., No. CV 06-3213, 2015 WL
4973626, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 20, 2015) ([D]epositions of high-level officers severely burdens
those officers and the entities they represent, and . . . adversaries might use this severe burden to
their unfair advantage.).
As demonstrated above, President Monson does not have any unique knowledge of
relevant facts in this case. He is the highest-ranking official of a worldwide organization with

The Church Entities motion for preliminary injunction attached the declaration of
Roger Van Komen, a manager of LDS Family Services with personal knowledge of how the
ISPP was administered in the past. See Van Komen Decl. 1-4.

13
87036278.1 0056812-00002

Case 2:16-cv-00453-RJS-BCW Document 21 Filed 07/21/16 Page 14 of 16

more than 15 million members. He presides over the members of the LDS Church as their
ecclesiastical leader. Requiring him to devote time to preparing and appearing for a deposition
would subject him to undue burden. Defendants cannot seriously argue otherwise.
D.

President Monsons Deposition Is Sought for an Improper Purpose.

Courts . . . have the discretion to prevent oppressive, harassing, inconvenient, and

burdensome depositions of executive officials. Reif, 248 F.R.D. at 453; see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(c)(1); Gall v. St. Elizabeth Med. Ctr., 130 F.R.D. 85, 86 (S.D. Ohio 1990) (A party who
believes a deposition is being taken . . . for an improper purpose may move for a protective
order.). Courts have used their discretion to bar depositions of corporate executives sought for
improper purposes like abuse of the discovery process. Celerity, Inc. v. Ultra Clean Holding,
Inc., No. C 05-4374 MMC (JL), 2007 WL 205067, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2007) (Virtually
every court that has addressed deposition notices directed at an official at the highest level or
apex of corporate management has observed that such discovery creates a tremendous potential
for abuse or harassment.); see also Mulvey v. Chrysler Corp., 106 F.R.D. 364, 366 (D.R.I.
1985) (denying party from taking deposition of the Chairman of the Board of Chrysler
Corporation and reasoning: The fact remains he is a singularly unique and important individual
who can be easily subjected to unwarranted harassment and abuse. He has a right to be
protected, and the courts have a duty to recognize his vulnerability.).
Here, the purpose of Defendants Subpoena is transparent. Defendants declined the
Church Entities offer to make available a Rule 30(b)(6) witness with knowledge of relevant
facts. Defendants Subpoena should be seen for what it isa tactical maneuver calculated to

14
87036278.1 0056812-00002

Case 2:16-cv-00453-RJS-BCW Document 21 Filed 07/21/16 Page 15 of 16

burden the apex leader of the LDS Church in a misguided attempt to create leverage in the
litigation. This is improper.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Church Entities respectfully submit that the Court should
grant their Motion and quash the Subpoena and enter a protective order barring President
Monsons deposition.

DATED: July 21st, 2016.

STOEL RIVES LLP

/s/ David J. Jordan

David J. Jordan
David J. Williams
Jordan C. Bledsoe
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

15
87036278.1 0056812-00002

Case 2:16-cv-00453-RJS-BCW Document 21 Filed 07/21/16 Page 16 of 16

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that that on the 21st day of July 2016, I caused a true and correct
copy of the foregoing MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND FOR ENTRY OF
PROTECTIVE ORDER AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM to be served electronically
on the following:
Craig K. Vernon
Wes S. Larsen
James, Vernon & Weeks, P.A.
1626 Lincoln Way
Coeur DAlene, ID 83814
cvernon@jvwlaw.net
William R. Keeler
Keeler & Keeler, LLP
108 E. Aztec Ave.
Gallup, NM 87301
billkeeler@keelerandkeeler.com

/s/ Rose Gledhill

16
87036278.1 0056812-00002

Case 2:16-cv-00453-RJS-BCW Document 21-1 Filed 07/21/16 Page 1 of 7

Case 2:16-cv-00453-RJS-BCW Document 21-1 Filed 07/21/16 Page 2 of 7

LAW FIRM LLC
PATRICK NOAKER
333 Washington Avenue N., # 329
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
Telephone: (612) 839-1080
patrick@noakerlaw.com

JAMES, VERNON & WEEKS, P.A.

KEELER & KEELER, LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LEANDER L. JAMES AND CRAIG K. VERNON
1626 Lincoln Way

BILL KEELER
108 East Aztec Avenue
Gallup, NM 87301
Telephone: (505) 722-5608
Facsimile: (505) 722-5614
billkeeler@keelerandkeeler.com

Coeur dAlene, Idaho 83814

Telephone: (208) 667-0683
Facsimile: (208) 664-1684

ljames@jvwlaw.net
cvernon@jvwlaw.net

June 24, 2016

David J. (D.J.) Williams
STOEL RIVES LLP
201 S. Main St, Suite 1100
Salt Lake City, UT 84111-4904
RE:

The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day

Saints, and LDS Family Services v. RJ, MM and BN
Deposition of Thomas S. Monson

Dear D.J.:
Your clients recently filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment in federal court
challenging, on jurisdictional grounds, the Navajo Nation actions we filed. In order to address
these issues, we would like to take the deposition of President Thomas S. Monson, the corporate
sole of The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
We believe President Monson has unique information about allegations in the
aforementioned complaint. For example, this complaint argues that jurisdiction doesnt extend
to activities of nonmembers of the tribe and that case law doesnt allow Indian tribes to
exercise civil jurisdiction over the activities or conduct of non-Indians occurring outside their
reservations. However, there are facts contrary to these claims that we believe President
Monson is aware of.
A principal figure in the Indian Placement Program was George P. Lee, an enrolled
member of the Navajo Nation. Based on our research, Lee went through the Indian Placement
program in the 50s and early 60s. President Monson became an Apostle in 1963, around the
same time Lee served an LDS mission in the Southwest Indian Mission, which included the
Navajo Nation within its boundaries. Lee continued to represent the LDS Church on the Navajo
Nation as he served as a Branch President, and then as a District President. Lee continued to rise
in LDS hierarchy as he was then called to be the Mission President over the Arizona Holbrook
Mission, which included the Navajo Nation within its boundaries. We believe that Lee resided
within the Navajo Nation during most of this time and also worked for LDS Social Services,
with his main focus being the Indian Placement Program within the Navajo Nation.
On October 3, 1975, Lee was called to be a General Authority (GA) for the LDS Church
by President Spencer W. Kimball. During his 14 years as a GA, we have good reason to believe
that Lee was charged with coordination and oversight of the Indian Placement Program, which
operated in part on the Navajo Nation, extracting children and placing them in homes where

Case 2:16-cv-00453-RJS-BCW Document 21-1 Filed 07/21/16 Page 3 of 7

June 24, 2016
To:
D.J. Williams
Re:
Deposition of Thomas S. Monson
Page 2

some, including our clients, were sexually violated. During these years, it is believed that Lee
resided in large part within the Navajo Nation and spent extensive time working for the Churchs
Indian Placement Program within the Navajo Nation.
Lee was excommunicated in 1989. One of the reasons given for such a drastic action was
his disagreement with then President Ezra Taft Benson, who sought to end the Indian Placement
Program. Perhaps another reason why President Benson ended this program, related to the
sexual abuse of children, not only by certain individuals charged with caring for them as foster
parents, but also by the principal Navajo leader in this program, George P. Lee.
As reported in the Salt Lake Tribune, Deseret News and other media sources, Lee pled
guilty in 1994 to sexually molesting a 12-year-old. This crime was committed before his
excommunication, while he was still a GA. The then 17-year-old girl testified that Brother Lee
had told her that God approved of the love between the two. For the principal Navajo leader of
this program to invoke God as the reason why a 12-year-old girl should stay quiet about being
sexually abused is relevant to all abuse cases within this program. What President Monson
knew or didnt know about this and child sexual abuse within this program in general, is
relevant. If President Monson claims no knowledge, that too is relevant to what the Church
knew or should have known about Lee and his ability to lead this program within the boundaries
of the Navajo Nation and protect Indian Placement Programs children from sexual harm.
We have information that this was not the only time Lee sexually molested young girls.
President Monson would be in a unique position to testify about any complaints against Lee
before he was called to be a GA and complaints made against him while he was a GA. While
this information is certainly relevant to our clients negligence claims filed in Navajo Nation
court, it also bears on the jurisdictional issues raised in your clients Complaint. Lee was in a
leadership role over this program both before and after he was called as a GA. His actions, and
the location of his actions, are certainly relevant to refute factual contentions in the complaint
President Monsons corporation recently filed.
Additionally, President Monson presumably has information about Lees employment
with LDS Social Services on the Navajo Nation before he was called to be a GA, Lees
involvement with the Indian Placement Program within the Navajo Nation after he was called to
be GA, and the relationship Lee and the Church had with LDS Social Services both before and
after Lee was called to be a GA. This includes what power, control, policy implementing and
decision-making Lee, an enrolled member of the Navajo Nation, exercised within the Indian
Placement Program.
Furthermore, it is alleged in this complaint that [n]o act giving rise to the claims in Doe
Defendants complaint occurred on the reservation but instead, [d]ecisions regarding the
placement of participating tribal members from the part of the reservation where Doe Defendants
lived were made by LDS Social Services employees operating from their office in Cedar City

Case 2:16-cv-00453-RJS-BCW Document 21-1 Filed 07/21/16 Page 4 of 7

June 24, 2016
To:
D.J. Williams
Re:
Deposition of Thomas S. Monson
Page 3

and Salt Lake City. Because our clients are alleging abuse starting as early as 1962, President
Monson, who became an Apostle in 1963, would likely have information relative to the claims
his corporation is making. He may also know of other people whom we also would need to
depose, who would have information relevant to these allegations.
Please find enclosed a Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action set for
July 20, 2016. If that date, time or location does not work for President Monson or you, please
provide me with an available date from July 13 31st. I am available weekends and during nonbusiness hours in order to accommodate President Monsons schedule. Additionally, because of
President Monsons advanced age, we certainly can make reasonable accommodations if he has
any medical or other needs. We are willing to discuss limiting the amount of time for the
deposition as well. I dont intend on doing a travel log on President Monsons life. As President
Monson is a beloved public figure to those in his Church, his life journey and accomplishments
are readily available to me via the internet. His deposition will be centered around the issues
germane to this case only.
As time is of the essence, please get back to me within the next seven days to advise
whether you will accept the subpoena on behalf of President Monson or to discuss alternative
deposition dates and/or terms.
Sincerely,
NOAKER LAW FIRM, LLC
JAMES, VERNON & WEEKS, P.A.
KEELER & KEELER, LLP

By:
Craig K. Vernon
CKV:m
Enc.

Case 2:16-cv-00453-RJS-BCW Document 21-1 Filed 07/21/16 Page 5 of 7

AO 88A (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
District of Utah, Central Division
THE CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF
THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTERDAY SAINTS, a Utah corporation; LDS FAMILY
SERVICES

)
)
)
)
Plaintiff )
)
)
)

v.
RJ, MM and BN, individuals

Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-00453-RJS

Judge: Robert J. Shelby

Defendant

AMENDED SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A DEPOSITION IN A CIVIL ACTION

THOMAS S. MONSON

To:

(Name of person to whom this subpoena is directed)

Testimony: YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear at the time, date, and place set forth below to testify at a
deposition to be taken in this civil action.
Place:

Stoel Rives, LLP

201 S. Main Street, Suite 1100
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
The deposition will be recorded by this method:

Date and Time:

August 4, 2016, 10:00 a.m. MST
Court Reporter

Production: You, or your representatives, must also bring with you to the deposition the following documents,
electronically stored information, or objects, and must permit inspection, copying, testing, or sampling of the
material:
Any information you have in your possession relating to any claims of abuse from 1963 to the present
within the Indian Placement Program. Bring all documents responsive to any interrogatories and
requests for production set forth in the attached Defendants First Interrogatories And Requests For

Production To Plaintiff The Corporation Of The President Of The Church Of Jesus Christ Of
Latter-Day Saints
The following provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 are attached Rule 45(c), relating to the place of compliance;
Rule 45(d), relating to your protection as a person subject to a subpoena; and Rule 45(e) and (g), relating to your duty to
respond to this subpoena and the potential consequences of not doing so.
Date:

July 18, 2016

CLERK OF COURT
OR
Attorneys signature

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Defendants
, who issues or requests this subpoena, are:

The name, address, e-mail address, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party)

RJ, MM, BN and LK

Craig K. Vernon
James, Vernon & Weeks, P.A.
1626 Lincoln Way
Coeur dAlene, ID 83814
Phone: (208) 667-0683
cvernon@jvwlaw.net

Case 2:16-cv-00453-RJS-BCW Document 21-1 Filed 07/21/16 Page 6 of 7

Notice to the person who issues or requests this subpoena
If this subpoena commands the production of documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things before
trial, a notice and a copy of the subpoena must be served on each party in this case before it is served on the person to
whom it is directed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(4).
AO 88A (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

2:16-cv-00453-RJS
PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.)

I received this subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any)

on (date)
.
I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named individual as follows:
on (date)

; or

I returned the subpoena unexecuted because:

.
Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also
tendered to the witness the fees for one days attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of
$
My fees are $

.
for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:
Servers signature

Printed name and title

Servers address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc.:

AO 88A (Rev. 02/14) Subpoena to Testify at a Deposition in a Civil Action (Page 3)

Case 2:16-cv-00453-RJS-BCW Document 21-1 Filed 07/21/16 Page 7 of 7

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (c), (d), (e), and (g) (Effective 12/1/13)
(c) Place of Compliance.
(1) For a Trial, Hearing, or Deposition. A subpoena may command a
person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition only as follows:
(A) within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or
regularly transacts business in person; or
(B) within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly
transacts business in person, if the person
(i) is a party or a partys officer; or
(ii) is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial
expense.
(2) For Other Discovery. A subpoena may command:
(A) production of documents, electronically stored information, or
tangible things at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is
employed, or regularly transacts business in person; and
(B) inspection of premises at the premises to be inspected.
(d) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena; Enforcement.
(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense; Sanctions. A party or attorney
responsible for issuing and serving a subpoena must take reasonable steps
to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to the
subpoena. The court for the district where compliance is required must
enforce this duty and impose an appropriate sanctionwhich may include
lost earnings and reasonable attorneys feeson a party or attorney who
fails to comply.
(2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit Inspection.
(A) Appearance Not Required. A person commanded to produce
documents, electronically stored information, or tangible things, or to
permit the inspection of premises, need not appear in person at the place of
production or inspection unless also commanded to appear for a deposition,
hearing, or trial.
(B) Objections. A person commanded to produce documents or tangible
things or to permit inspection may serve on the party or attorney designated
in the subpoena a written objection to inspecting, copying, testing, or
sampling any or all of the materials or to inspecting the premisesor to
producing electronically stored information in the form or forms requested.
The objection must be served before the earlier of the time specified for
compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served. If an objection is made,
the following rules apply:
(i) At any time, on notice to the commanded person, the serving party
may move the court for the district where compliance is required for an
order compelling production or inspection.
(ii) These acts may be required only as directed in the order, and the
order must protect a person who is neither a party nor a partys officer from
significant expense resulting from compliance.
(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.
(A) When Required. On timely motion, the court for the district where
compliance is required must quash or modify a subpoena that:
(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;
(ii) requires a person to comply beyond the geographical limits
specified in Rule 45(c);
(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other protected matter, if no
exception or waiver applies; or
(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.
(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by a
subpoena, the court for the district where compliance is required may, on
motion, quash or modify the subpoena if it requires:

(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development,

or commercial information; or
(ii) disclosing an unretained experts opinion or information that does
not describe specific occurrences in dispute and results from the experts
study that was not requested by a party.
(C) Specifying Conditions as an Alternative. In the circumstances
described in Rule 45(d)(3)(B), the court may, instead of quashing or
modifying a subpoena, order appearance or production under specified
conditions if the serving party:
(i) shows a substantial need for the testimony or material that cannot be
otherwise met without undue hardship; and
(ii) ensures that the subpoenaed person will be reasonably compensated.
(e) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.
(1) Producing Documents or Electronically Stored Information. These
procedures apply to producing documents or electronically stored
information:
(A) Documents. A person responding to a subpoena to produce documents
must produce them as they are kept in the ordinary course of business or
must organize and label them to correspond to the categories in the demand.
(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored Information Not Specified.
If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing electronically stored
information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in
which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.
(C) Electronically Stored Information Produced in Only One Form. The
person responding need not produce the same electronically stored
information in more than one form.
(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored Information. The person
responding need not provide discovery of electronically stored information
from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because
of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective
order, the person responding must show that the information is not
reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is
made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the
requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations of Rule
26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify conditions for the discovery.
(2) Claiming Privilege or Protection.
(A) Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information
under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation
material must:
(i) expressly make the claim; and
(ii) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or
tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself
privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.
(B) Information Produced. If information produced in response to a
subpoena is subject to a claim of privilege or of protection as trialpreparation material, the person making the claim may notify any party that
received the information of the claim and the basis for it. After being
notified, a party must promptly return, sequester, or destroy the specified
information and any copies it has; must not use or disclose the information
until the claim is resolved; must take reasonable steps to retrieve the
information if the party disclosed it before being notified; and may promptly
present the information under seal to the court for the district where
compliance is required for a determination of the claim. The person who
produced the information must preserve the information until the claim is
resolved.
(g) Contempt.
The court for the district where compliance is requiredand also, after a
motion is transferred, the issuing courtmay hold in contempt a person
who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the
subpoena or an order related to it.

For access to subpoena materials, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a) Committee Note (2013).

Case 2:16-cv-00453-RJS-BCW Document 21-2 Filed 07/21/16 Page 1 of 3

Case 2:16-cv-00453-RJS-BCW Document 21-2 Filed 07/21/16 Page 2 of 3

Case 2:16-cv-00453-RJS-BCW Document 21-2 Filed 07/21/16 Page 3 of 3