LANCE A. BRITTON, Plaintiff, v. KLAMATH COUNTY, et al, Defendants Civ. No. 1:15-cv-02086-CL United States District Court, D. Oregon Filed October 04, 2017 Clarke, Mark D., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 This matter comes before the court on four different motions. For the reasons below, the defendants' motion to quash (#52) is denied as moot. The defendants' motion to compel (#63) is granted. Plaintiff's motion to disqualify the law firm of Gerald Warren as counsel for defendants (#60) is denied. Finally, the motion to quash (#54) filed by third parties Vaughan and Patridge is granted, but Plaintiff may properly serve the Klamath County District Attorney's Office, and that Office is ordered to promptly respond. First, the defendants' motion to quash is denied as moot. Defense counsel indicated on the phone that the defendants have construed the subpoena as a request for production and provided responses and objections, including substantially nearly the entire police investigative file. The Court finds this to be an appropriate response, and does not find the need to intervene further. Second, the defendants' motion to compel is granted. The Court heard from Plaintiff on the conference call today, and finds that Plaintiff has not presented an adequate reason for failing to respond to the defendants' discovery requests. Plaintiff's difficulties with technology are understandable, but they are not a sufficient reason not to provide the defendants with discoverable material if Plaintiff wishes to move forward with this case. Therefore, Plaintiff is ordered to respond, including by providing the e-mails indicated on a thumb drive or other similar electronic method, by November 3, 2017. Failure to comply with this order will result in sanctions up to and including dismissal of the case. Third, Plaintiff's motion to disqualify the law firm of Gerald Warren as counsel for defendants is denied. The Court has not found any conflict arising from the law firm's representation of the defendants in this case. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit has dealt harshly with parties that attempt to disqualify opposing counsel for tactical reasons. See Optyl Eyewear Fashion Int'l Corp. v. Style Companies, Ltd., 760 F.2d 1045, 1048 (9th Cir. 1985). In this case, the Court is confident that Mr. Warren and Mr. Naumes will uphold their ethical duties as laid out in the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless there is a particular ethical rule that Plaintiff can point to and show evidence of a clear violation, no further motion on this topic will be entertained by the Court. Fourth, the motion to quash filed by former defendants Vaughan and Patridge is granted for lack of proper service and lack of control over the documents requested. Plaintiff is, however, allowed and encouraged to properly serve such a subpoena on the Klamath County District Attorney's Office. The District Attorney's Office, upon receipt of such subpoena, is ordered to promptly respond with the appropriate records relating to the incident in question, subject to any privileged or work product documents that may be exempt from production. It is so ORDERED and DATED this 4 day of October, 2017.