# Speedie

> District Court, W.D. Washington · May 29, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11372386

## Case

- **Full name:** Dave Neil Speedie v. Alexi Dawn Speedie
- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Washington
- **Decided:** May 29, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11372386

## Opinion text

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
11

12
The Honorable John H. Chun
13 DAVE NEIL SPEEDIE,
No. 2:26-cv-00345-JHC
14 Petitioner,
PRETRIAL ORDER
15 v.
16 ALEXI DAWN SPEEDIE,
17 Respondent.
18

19
JURISDICTION
20
Jurisdiction is vested in this court by virtue of:
21
22 The Court has federal jurisdiction under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act
23 (“ICARA”) § 9003 because this case involves the alleged retention of two children under the age of
24
1
25
PRETRIAL ORDER
(2:26-cv-00345-JHC)
26
sixteen (16) in the United States from their alleged habitual residence of Canada. Congress has
1
specifically granted concurrent original jurisdiction to the federal court of actions arising under the
2
3 Hague Convention. ICARA § 9003. Neither party disputes jurisdiction.
4 CLAIMS AND DEFENSES

5 PETITIONER

6
The Petitioner will pursue at trial the following claims:
7
Father brings the following claims: (A) a claim for return of the parties’ children to Canada
8
under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the “Hague
9
Convention”) and ICARA, 22 U.S.C. § 9001 et seq.; and (B) a claim under ICARA § 9007 for necessary
10
expenses relating to the return of the children.
11
12 Father seeks an order for return of the children to Canada. Thereafter, and in accordance with the
13 schedule and procedure set forth in this Court’s Local Rule 54, Father will seek an order and judgment
14 against Mother for an award of necessary expenses, including court costs and transportation costs,
15
relating to return of the children in accordance with ICARA § 9007, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54,
16
and Local Rule 54.
17
RESPONDENT
18
Respondent will pursue the following defenses and affirmative defenses at trial:
19
20 Respondent denies that Petitioner is entitled to the requested relief and denies that Petitioner can
21 establish the elements necessary to prove his prima facie case under the Hague Convention. Respondent
22 further asserts the affirmative defense under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention that return of the
23
24
2
25
PRETRIAL ORDER
(2:26-cv-00345-JHC)
26
children to Canada would expose the children to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or
1
otherwise place the children in an intolerable situation.
2
3 Respondent additionally asserts that separation of the joint minor children from their older
4 siblings, K.N. and A.N., in the event the Court finds grave risk as to A.N. or the non-joint older children,
5 would itself create a grave risk of emotional and psychological harm to the joint minor children.
6
Respondent requests that the Petition for Return of Children be denied.
7
ADMITTED FACTS
8
The following facts are admitted by the parties:
9
1. The parties were married on February 20, 2017, in Fort Langley, British
10
Columbia. Dkt. #26, ¶ 11, Dkt. #32, ¶ 11.
11
12 2. The parties are the parents of two children, LS (boy, born in 2018) and IS (girl,
13 born in 2024) (collectively the “children”). Dkt. #26, ¶ 12, Dkt. #32, ¶ 12.
14 3. LS and IS are both under the age of sixteen (16). Dkt. #26, ¶ 49, Dkt. #32, ¶ 49.
15
4. The children are currently located within the Western District of Washington.
16
Dkt. #26, ¶ 8, Dkt. #32, ¶ 8.
17
5. Father is a Canadian citizen. Dkt. #26, ¶ 14, Dkt. #32, ¶ 14.
18
6. Mother is a homemaker. Dkt. #26, ¶ 18, Dkt. #32, ¶ 18.
19
20 7. On or about October 9, 2025, Mother filed a Domestic Violence Protection Order
21 (“DVRO”) in state court in Whatcom County, Washington, Case Number 25-2-02128-37. Dkt. #26, ¶
22 25, Dkt. #32, ¶ 25.
23
24
3
25
PRETRIAL ORDER
(2:26-cv-00345-JHC)
26
8. On or about December 8, 2025, the Whatcom County court stated that it would
1
assume permanent jurisdiction unless British Columbia established communication with it; and that any
2
3 foreign order would have to be approved by a Whatcom County judge. Dkt. #26, ¶ 27, Dkt. #32, ¶ 27.
4 ISSUES OF LAW

5 The following are the issues of law to be determined by the court:

6
PETITIONER
7
1. Petitioner’s Prima Facie Case
8
To meet his prima facie burden, Father must establish by a preponderance of the evidence: (1)
9
that the children’s habitual residence immediately prior to the date of retention was Canada; (2) that
10
Father had rights of custody to the children under Canadian at the time of the retention that were
11
12 breached by the retention; and (3) that Father was exercising his rights of custody to the children at the
13 time of the retention, or would have been exercising his rights of custody but for the retention. Mother
14 disputes every element of Father’s prima facie case.
15
Father may rely upon the authority listed below in support of his prima facie case.
16
Treaties, Statutes and Rules
17
i. Hague Convention, preamble and articles 1, 3, 5, 12, 14, 16, 17
18
ii. ICARA § 9001 et seq.
19
20 iii. Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1
21 Cases
22 iv. Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (2010)
23 v. Abou-Haidar v. Sanin Vazquez, 945 F.3d 1208 (D.C. Cir. 2019)
24
4
25
PRETRIAL ORDER
(2:26-cv-00345-JHC)
26
vi. Asvesta v. Petroutsas, 580 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2009)
1
vii. Colchester v. Lazaro, 16 F.4th 712 (9th Cir. 2021)
2
3 viii. Cuellar v. Joyce, 596 F.3d 505 (9th Cir. 2010)
4 ix. E. Sussex Children Servs. v. Morris, 919 F. Supp. 2d 721 (N.D. W. Va. 2013)
5 x. Feder v. Evans-Feder, 63 F.3d 217 (1995)
6
xi. Gaudin v. Remis, 282 F.3d 1178 (9th Cir. 2002)
7
xii. Gomez v. Gonzalez, 771 F. Supp. 3d 1150 (W.D. Wash. 2025)
8
xiii. Holder v. Holder, 305 F.3d 854 (9th Cir. 2002)
9
xiv. In re ICJ, 13 F.4th 753 (9th Cir. 2021)
10
11
xv. Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez, 572 U.S. 1 (2014)
12 xvi. Monasky v. Taglieri, 589 U.S. 68 (2020)
13 xvii. Nisbet v. Bridger, 124 F.4th 577 (9th Cir. 2024)
14 xviii. Nelson v. Petterle, 782 F. Supp. 2d 1081 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
15
xix. Palencia v. Perez, 921 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2019).
16
xx. Papakosmas v. Papakosmas, 483 F.3d 617 (9th Cir. 2007)
17
xxi. Radu v. Shon, 62 F.4th 1165 (9th Cir. 2023) (“Radu III”)
18
xxii. Redmond v. Redmond, 724 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 2013)
19
20 xxiii. Sealed Appellant v. Sealed Appellee, 394 F.3d 338 (5th Cir. 2004)
21 xxiv. Walker v. Walker, 701 F.3d 1110 (7th Cir. 2012)
22 xxv. Whallon v. Lynn, 230 F.3d 450 (1st Cir. 2000)
23 Other Authority
24
5
25
PRETRIAL ORDER
(2:26-cv-00345-JHC)
26
xxvi. Eliza Perez-Vera, Explanatory Report: Hague Convention on Private International Law, in 3
1
Acts and Documents of the Fourteenth Session (1980)
2
3 xxvii. Hon. James D. Garbolino, The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International
4 Child Abduction – A Guide for Judges (3d. ed. 2023)
5 xxviii. United States Department of State Legal Analysis, 51 Fed. Reg. 10494 (1986)
6
2. Respondent’s Discretionary Exceptions
7
There are certain narrow discretionary exceptions to return under the Convention which, if
8
asserted and established by a respondent might allow a court in its discretion to decline to return a child.
9
See Convention arts. 13 and 20. Mother here asserts one exception: the article 13b grave risk exception
10
to return. The article 13b exception must be established by clear and convincing evidence. ICARA at §
11
12 9003(e)(2).
13 Father may rely upon the following authority in opposition to Mother’s asserted exception:
14 Treaties, Statutes and Rules
15
i. Hague Convention, article 13
16
ii. ICARA § 9001 et seq.
17
Cases
18
iii. Aubert v. Poast, No. 24-cv-926-jdp (W.D. Wis. Sept. 18, 2025), appeal docketed, No. 25-
19
20 2732 (6th Cir., Oct. 1, 2025)
21 iv. Colchester v. Lazaro, 16 F.4th 712 (9th Cir. 2021)
22 v. Cuellar v. Joyce, 596 F.3d 505 (9th Cir. 2010)
23 vi. Golan v. Saada, 596 U.S. 666 (2022)
24
6
25
PRETRIAL ORDER
(2:26-cv-00345-JHC)
26
vii. Gomez v. Fuenmayor, 812 F.3d 1005 (11th Cir. 2016)
1
viii. Nowlan v. Nowlan, 543 F. Supp. 3d 324 (W.D. Va. 2021)
2
3 ix. Radu v. Shon, 62 F.4th 1165 (9th Cir. 2023) (“Radu III”)
4 x. Wertz v. Wertz, 2018 WL 1575830 (No. 7:18-cv-00061. W.D.Va., Mar. 30, 2018)
5 Other Authority
6
xi. Eliza Perez-Vera, Explanatory Report: Hague Convention on Private International Law, in 3
7
Acts and Documents of the Fourteenth Session (1980)
8
xii. Hon. James D. Garbolino, The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International
9
Child Abduction – A Guide for Judges (3d. ed. 2023)
10
11
xiii. United States Department of State Legal Analysis, 51 Fed. Reg. 10494 (1986)
12 3. Ameliorative Measures
13 Courts may consider imposing ameliorative measures (also known as protective measures), in
14 Hague Convention cases in which the article 13b exception to return is asserted by a respondent. The
15
concept of ameliorative measures is meant to reconcile the competing interests of preventing wrongful
16
removals and retentions and protecting the safety of children by considering the inclusion of
17
ameliorative measures in return orders, to mitigate the potential risk of harm occasioned by the child’s
18
repatriation.
19
20 Father may rely upon the following authority with respect to ameliorative measures:
21 i. Golan v. Saada, 142 S. Ct. 1880 (2022)
22 ii. Radu v. Shon, 11 F.4th 1080, 1089 (9th Cir. 2021) (“Radu I”)
23 iii. Radu III
24
7
25
PRETRIAL ORDER
(2:26-cv-00345-JHC)
26
iv. Simcox v. Simcox, 511 F.3d 594, 605 (6th Cir. 2007)
1

2
3 4. Washington State Court Orders

4 Article 17 of the Hague Convention expressly provides that “[t]he sole fact that a decision
5 relating to custody has been given or is entitled to recognition in the Requested State (here the United
6
States of America) shall not be a ground for refusing to return a child under this Convention.
7
Convention, art. 17 (emphasis added).
8
The Hague Convention is a treaty and is the supreme law of the land. Under well-settled
9
principles of law, this Court is therefore strictly bound by article 17 of the Hague Convention.
10
Accordingly, this Court cannot deny the Father’s Hague Convention case on the sole basis that an order
11
12 relating to custody exists in the Washington State Court. Id. Under article 17 of the Convention, a parent
13 who wrongfully removes or retains a child cannot insulate the child from the Convention’s return
14 provisions by obtaining a state court custody order. United States Department of State Legal Analysis,
15
51 Fed. Reg. 10494, 10504-05.
16
The Seventh Circuit decided the leading case on exactly this legal issue. Walker v. Walker, 701
17
F.3d 1110, 1116 (7th Cir. 2012). The Seventh Circuit instructs in Walker that article 17 of the Hague
18
Convention “qualifies the finality of any state-court custody judgment and thus ensures that there is still
19
20 a live controversy before the federal court.” Id. It further instructs that when habitual residence is
21 disputed in a Hague Convention case:
22 Until that question is resolved, we cannot say which country’s courts have
the power to resolve the issue of custody. As Article 17 of the Convention
23 implies, the antecedent question must be answered before we know what
weight to give to the judgment of the Illinois court.
24
8
25
PRETRIAL ORDER
(2:26-cv-00345-JHC)
26
Id.
1
The Seventh Circuit explains that this approach “makes sense, given the purpose of the
2
3 Convention.” Id. It explains that accepting a position whereby an abducting parent could “render a
4 petition for return moot by racing to a courthouse in her chosen country to obtain a custody judgment
5 would turn the Convention on its head.” Id. The Seventh Circuit recognizes that “[t]he entire purpose of
6
the Convention is to deter parents from absconding with their children and crossing international borders
7
in the hopes of obtaining a favorable custody determination in a friendlier jurisdiction.” Id. (citations
8
omitted). Considering a Hague Convention case moot based on the existence of any state court custody
9
judgments would “encourage the very sort of jurisdictional gerrymandering the Convention was
10
designed to prevent.” Id. The Washington State Court orders in this case therefore have no bearing on
11
12 this Court’s habitual residence analysis.
13 5. Authority for Independent Sexual Abuse Investigation

14 In Mother’s Expert Disclosures, she alleged for the first time in this litigation that Father has
15
sexually abused Mother’s older daughter, (Father’s step-daughter; age 17; not the subject of this case).
16
Mother did not allege sexual abuse in her Answer (Dkt. # 32), or in her Initial Disclosures served on
17
May 5, 2026, or in her Answers to Interrogatories served on May 14, 2026.
18
Father seeks to exclude Mother’s two proposed experts from testifying—Dr. Landon Poppleton
19
20 for not meeting Daubert standards, and Dr. Jeffrey L. Edelson for failure to produce a report. See
21 Section G infra. Mother has not proposed offering any forensic evidence through either of her experts in
22 support of her position that sexual abuse has occurred. She proposes only that her older daughter,
23
24
9
25
PRETRIAL ORDER
(2:26-cv-00345-JHC)
26
A.M.N., be interviewed by the Court in chambers. (Dkt. #48). Father opposes Mother’s motion for in-
1
chambers only testimony. (Dkt. #51).
2
3 In the event the Court requires a forensic investigation in this circumstance, the Court has
4 authority to appoint an independent investigator. In Nowlan v. Nowlan, a Hague Convention case in the
5 Western District of Virginia, the respondent-mother alleged the petitioner-father had committed sexual
6
abuse against the child at issue but did not present any forensic evidence relating to the allegations of
7
child sexual abuse. 543 F. Supp. 3d 324, 330 (W.D. Va. 2021). At the conclusion of the evidentiary
8
hearing, the court therefore appointed two independent experts to conduct a neutral forensic evaluation
9
of the child under Fed. R. Civ. P. 706. Order of Appointment at 2, Feb. 5, 2021, ECF No. 74. The same
10
mechanism is available here, if after the evidentiary hearing the court concludes that a forensic
11
12 evaluation is necessary for the Court to evaluate Mother’s allegations and her article 13b alleged
13 exception.
14 6. Article 30 Self-Authentication and Admissibility of Documents
15
Article 30 of the Hague Convention provides that:
16
[a]ny application submitted to the Central Authorities or directly to the
17 judicial or administrative authorities of a Contracting State in accordance
with the terms of the Convention, along with documents and other
18 information appended thereto or provided by a Central Authority, shall be
admissible in the courts or other administrative authorities of the
19
Contracting States.
20
Convention, art. 30 (emphasis added).
21
ICARA further provides that no authentication of any such documents moved into evidence by
22
the Father is required. ICARA § 9005; see also Ngassa v. Mpafe, 488 F. Supp. 2d 514, 518, n.3 (D.
23
Md. 2007). “ICARA bypasses the authentication requirement ‘[w]ith respect to any application to the
24
10
25
PRETRIAL ORDER
(2:26-cv-00345-JHC)
26
United States Central Authority, or any petition to a court.’ 22 U.S.C. § 9005.” Nowlan v. Nowlan,
1
543 F. Supp. 3d 324, 356 (W.D. Va. 2021) (emphasis in original).
2
3 7. Other Evidentiary Points of Law
4 Father incorporates by reference herein the pending and forthcoming motions in limine, and the
5 oppositions thereto:
6
i. Father’s Motion in Limine (Daubert motion regarding Mother’s proposed expert
7
Dr. Landon Poppleton), Dkt. # 47; Mother’s opposition not yet filed.
8
ii. Father’s forthcoming Motion in Limine (exclusion of Mother’s proposed expert
9
Dr. Jeffrey L. Edelson for failure to produce a report).
10
11 RESPONDENT

12 1. Petitioner’s Prima Face Case
13 Respondent disputes whether Petitioner can establish the elements necessary to prove a prima
14 facie case under the Hague Convention, including disputed issues regarding the children’s alleged
15
habitual residence, the existence and exercise of custody rights, and whether any alleged retention was
16
wrongful within the meaning of the Convention. Petitioner bears the burden of proving the elements of
17
his prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence. See 22 U.S.C. § 9003(e)(1)(A); Cuellar v.
18
Joyce, 596 F.3d 505, 508 (9th Cir. 2010).
19
20 Respondent disputes Petitioner’s prima facie case under the Hague Convention, including
21 allegations regarding habitual residence, wrongful retention, custody rights, and the exercise of custody
22 rights.
23 Treaties, Statutes and Rules
24
11
25
PRETRIAL ORDER
(2:26-cv-00345-JHC)
26
i. Hague Convention, preamble and articles 1, 3, 5, 12, 14, 16, 17
1
ii. ICARA § 9001 et seq.
2
3 iii. Fed. R. Civ. P. 44.1
4 Cases
5 iv. Abbott v. Abbott, 560 U.S. 1 (2010)
6
v. Abou-Haidar v. Sanin Vazquez, 945 F.3d 1208 (D.C. Cir. 2019)
7
vi. Asvesta v. Petroutsas, 580 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2009)
8
vii. Colchester v. Lazaro, 16 F.4th 712 (9th Cir. 2021)
9
viii. Cuellar v. Joyce, 596 F.3d 505 (9th Cir. 2010)
10
11 2. Respondent’s Article 13(b) Grave Risk Defense
12 Under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention, the Court is not required to order return of a child
13 where the respondent establishes, by clear and convincing evidence, that returning the child would
14 expose the child to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an
15
intolerable situation. Hague Convention, art. 13(b); ICARA § 9003(e)(2).
16
Respondent asserts that the evidence will establish that return of the children to Canada would
17
expose the children to a grave risk of physical and psychological harm arising from coercive control,
18
emotional, physical, and sexual abuse, intimidation, unsafe living conditions, alcohol abuse, firearm-
19
20 related safety concerns, and ongoing fear-based family dynamics within the family home.
21 Respondent further asserts that, in the event the Court determines that grave risk exists as to A.N.
22 or the non-joint older children, separating the joint minor children from their older siblings would itself
23
24
12
25
PRETRIAL ORDER
(2:26-cv-00345-JHC)
26
create a grave risk of emotional and psychological harm to the joint minor children. See Aubert v. Poast,
1
No. 24-cv-926-jdp (W.D. Wis. Sept. 18, 2025), appeal docketed, No. 25-2732 (6th Cir., Oct. 1, 2025).
2
3 Respondent may rely upon the following authorities:
4
Treaties, Statutes and Rules
5 i. Hague Convention, article 13(b)
6 ii. ICARA § 9003(e)(2)
7
Cases
8
iii. Golan v. Saada, 596 U.S. 666 (2022)
9
iv. Cuellar v. Joyce, 596 F.3d 505, 508 (9th Cir. 2010)
10
v. Van De Sande v. Van De Sande, 431 F.3d 567 (7th Cir. 2005)
11
vi. Khan v. Fatima, 680 F.3d 781 (7th Cir. 2012)
12
13 vii. Gil-Leyva v. Leslie, 780 F. App’x 580 (10th Cir. 2019)
14 viii. Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2001)
15 ix. Aubert v. Poast, No. 24-cv-926-jdp (W.D. Wis. Sept. 18, 2025), appeal docketed, No. 25-
16
2732 (6th Cir., Oct. 1, 2025)
17
3. Ameliorative Measures
18
In Hague Convention proceedings involving an asserted Article 13(b) grave-risk defense, courts
19
may consider whether adequate ameliorative or protective measures exist that would sufficiently
20
mitigate any grave risk associated with return. See Golan v. Saada, 142 S. Ct. 1880 (2022). Respondent
21
22 disputes that adequate ameliorative measures exist under the facts and circumstances presented in this
23
24
13
25
PRETRIAL ORDER
(2:26-cv-00345-JHC)
26
case and contends that no proposed measures would sufficiently protect the children from the risk of
1
physical or psychological harm upon return to Canada.
2
3 Respondent may rely upon the following authorities:
4 i. Hague Convention, article 13(b)
5 ii. Golan v. Saada, 142 S. Ct. 1880 (2022)
6
iii. Radu v. Shon, 62 F.4th 1165 (9th Cir. 2023)
7
iv. Simcox v. Simcox, 511 F.3d 594 (6th Cir. 2007)
8
v. Valentina Shaknes & Jeffrey L. Edleson, Protective Measures and their Inability to Protect
9
Against Domestic Violence (2024).
10
11
vi. Merle H. Weiner, How Judges Can Apply the Hague Abduction Convention to Protect
12 Victims of Domestic Violence, 28 UCLA Women’s L.J. 223 (2021).
13 4. Washington State Court Orders
14 Mother agrees with Father’s analysis regarding the Washington State Court orders as to the
15
Order being used to prove habitual residence in the Hague Convention. However, that is not the
16
purpose of offering the Order. Mother offers the Order, Respondent’s Exhibit no. 545, not for the
17
purposes of defending Father’s arguments as to habitual residence, but for the purposes of the Court’s
18
findings under section 5, Basis and Type of Protection Order, subsection (B), that:
19
20 Based upon the petition, testimony, case record, and response, if any, the
court finds by a preponderance of evidence that the protected person (or
21 petitioner on their behalf) has proved the required criteria for the
following protection order under chapter 7.105 RCW…Domestic Violence
22 Protection Order- The restrained person has subjected the protected person
to domestic violence: physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the
23 infliction of fear of physical harm, bodily injury, or assault; nonconsensual
sexual conduct or nonconsensual sexual penetration; coercive control;
24
14
25
PRETRIAL ORDER
(2:26-cv-00345-JHC)
26
unlawful harassment; or stalking. (For intimate partners or family or
1
household members only).”

2
[Protection Order at 4.] In Exhibit 545, found at page one (1), Petitioner in the Whatcom County Order
3
is Alexi Speedie, and Respondent is David Speedie, who is therefore the “restrained person.” This
4
finding, when combined with the additional evidence Mother will set forth in trial, supports Mother’s
5
defense of grave risk pursuant to Article 13b. Additionally, Father stipulates to the authenticity and the
6
7 admission of Mother’s Exhibit no. 545, Order for Protection – in Whatcom County Court Case No. 25-
8 2-02128-37, dated November 24, 2025.
9 Further, in a Hague Convention case, Staggers v. Timmerman, heard in the Southern District of
10
Iowa, regarding the return of a minor child to Mexico, the District Court referenced, in its ultimate
11
denial of Petitioner’s Petition to return the children, the use of an Iowa state court protective order for
12
domestic abuse issued the same month as Staggers’ (“Petitioner’s”) filing in the Hague case. 746 F.
13
Supp. 3d 635, 640 (S.D. Iowa 2024). In this case, Timmerman (“Respondent”), alleged defenses under
14
Article 13b of both acquiescence and grave risk. Id. at 640. The Court in Staggers used the state court
15
16 order to help in its analysis of Respondent’s acquiescence defense. While the Court’s analysis of the
17 grave risk defense did not explicitly mention the Iowa state court Order, that Court stated, “[t]he record
18 in this case paints a disturbing picture of an unstable and violent relationship between the parties and
19
as such, a volatile environment for [the child].” Id. at 643.
20
The Court in Staggers continued to conclude that the child “was not, nor could she have been,
21
effectively shielded from the psychological and physical violence occurring between the parties. At a
22
minimum, it is evident that returning [the child] to Mexico would subject her to an intolerable
23
situation. The Court agrees with the finding in the Report and Recommendation. Even if the evidence
24
15
25
PRETRIAL ORDER
(2:26-cv-00345-JHC)
26
did not establish direct physical abuse of [the child] by Staggers, the surrounding circumstances and
1
magnitude of the potential harm constitute grave risk. Notwithstanding her habitual residence, the
2
3 Hague Convention would not require [the child’s] return.” Id.
4 As stated in Staggers, and as is true here, under a grave risk defense, a court should not return a
5 child to a situation in cases “involving serious abuse or neglect.” Vasquez v. Colores, 648 F.3d 648
6
(8th Cir. 2011) (citing Silverman v. Silverman, 338 F.3d 886, 900 (8th Cir. 2003)). “The key inquiry is
7
‘the gravity of risk’ facing the child. Babcock v. Babcock, 503 F. Supp. 3d 862, 882 (S.D. Iowa 2020)
8
(quoting Acosta v. Acosta, 725 F.3d 868, 876 (8th Cir. 2013)). This analysis focuses on ‘the probability
9
of harm, but also the magnitude of the harm if the probability materializes.’ Id.” Staggers, 746 F. Supp
10
3d at 643. The Court states in its analysis, “[c]onsidering the impact of domestic violence in the home
11
12 on [the child], the Report and Recommendation supports a finding of grave risk.” Id. Therefore,
13 Mother is utilizing the Washington state court order for purposes of supporting her grave risk defense.
14 5. Authority for Independent Sexual Abuse Investigation
15
In Nowlan v. Nowlan, the West Virginia District Court Hague Convention case cited by
16
Petitioner as support for an “Independent Sexual Abuse Investigation,” the child was age five (5) at the
17
time of the case. The child’s allegations were suspected based on physical evidence and statements
18
from the child. The child was not a 17-year-old, as we have in our case. AKN, the 17 year old daughter
19
20 of Respondent (Petitioner’s step-daughter), is able to articulate facts on her own and testify
21 competently. Additionally, the Court in Nowlan found the Respondent to not be credible. There are no
22 allegations as to the credibility in the instant case as to Respondent, nor her daughter.
23
24
16
25
PRETRIAL ORDER
(2:26-cv-00345-JHC)
26
Under Article 13b, the defense of grave risk, exists when “his or her return would expose the
1
child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.” In
2
3 Mother’s response to Father’s interrogatories, sent on May 14, 2026, Mother wrote:
4 Respondent has documented at length Petitioner’s abusive behavior
towards the children and herself, as well as to her oldest daughter, AN.
5 Respondent kept records of Petitioner’s physical, emotional, and
psychological abuse, including in past journal entries, text messages, and
6
emails. Additionally, there are numerous people who can report their own
7 observations, having witnessed Petitioner’s physical aggression, threats,
intimidation and assaults. Police interviews with the children contain facts
8 that support these claims. There is also a current Washington State
Domestic Violence Protection Order protecting the children and
9 Respondent from Petitioner.

10
[Respondent’s Response to Petitioner’s Interrogatories to Respondent, at 7, (emphasis added).] So,
11
Petitioner has been on notice of these allegations since well before this Hague litigation began, and
12
also throughout this litigation, as there have been numerous references to the Protective Order in the
13
Washington Case. [ECF 54, Respondent’s Exhibit no. 545]. Respondent’s Declaration in the parties’
14
Washington State case, Declaration of Respondent in Whatcom County Court Case No. 25-2-02128-
15
16 37, dated October 9, 2025, very clearly stated allegations of sexual abuse by Petitioner to AKN
17 [Respondent’s Exhibit no. 506.] Also, not only did Respondent send the Declaration in discovery for
18 this case on May 18, 2026, but Petitioner was made aware of the Declaration back in October 2025. Id.
19
Additionally, Petitioner’s (“Father’s”) own Pretrial Statement, filed May 26, 2026, acknowledged that
20
the Whatcom County Case, number 25-2-021287-37, was filed on October 9, 2025. [54 at 3]. So, when
21
Mother mentions “abusive behavior towards…her oldest daughter, AN,” in her responses to the
22
interrogatories, Father is well aware of the specific nature of the abuse reported.
23
24
17
25
PRETRIAL ORDER
(2:26-cv-00345-JHC)
26
Sexual abuse of a minor child in the care of the Father is absolutely relevant as to a defense of
1
grave risk of harm for the parties’ joint, minor children. AKN began to live with Father when she and
2
3 her mother moved in with him, when she was approximately eight (8) years old. The Court will hear
4 testimony that the family moved into a home that was approximately 380 square feet, with little to no
5 privacy, and Father had access to AKN daily, while she was both a child, adolescent and teenager.
6
These behaviors by Father are extremely dangerous to any child.
7
Additionally, Dr. Poppleton’s report, disclosed to Father within Mother’s Expert Witness
8
Disclosures on May 15, 2026, mentioned that AKN “reported emotional experiences consistent with
9
posttraumatic stress disorder, citing further (and consistent with her Mother’s reports of the same) that
10
her stepfather sexually molested her for many years.” [47-1 at 12.] Dr. Poppleton’s report continued
11
12 with AKN’s description in explicit detail about the sexual molestation that she underwent by Father
13 from the age of 8 to the age of 16. Id. AKN was also interviewed and disclosed allegations of a sexual
14 nature at the Brigid Collins Children’s Advocacy Center, by Forensic Interviewer Liliana Mendoza, as
15
documented in the Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office Police Report, Respondent’s Exhibit no. 535,
16
authored by Detective Sergeant Ken Gates, that was discovered to Father on May 18, 2026. Mother’s
17
minor child has now been interviewed numerous times in excruciatingly specific details about the
18
nature of the sexual abuse at the hands of Father. The statements have all remained consistent. Further,
19
20 there has been no determination by the Court as to the credibility of either AKN, Mother, or Mother’s
21 experts and therefore a neutral evaluator is not necessary.
22 Again, in contrast to Nowlan, the victim here, AN, is of an age and competency in which she
23 can testify to these egregious acts committed by Father over the span of almost a decade. Respondent’s
24
18
25
PRETRIAL ORDER
(2:26-cv-00345-JHC)
26
counsel made the simple request that she not be forced to be subjected to the inevitable stare of
1
Petitioner during her testimony, by seeking in chambers questioning. There is no allegation as to AN’s
2
3 competency or credibility. Finally, there is no motion pending as to a request for a court-appointed
4 expert witness, as outlined in Fed. R. Civ. P. 706, and therefore, no neutral evaluator need be
5 appointed.
6
6. Admissibility of Documents
7
22 U.S.C. § 9005 provides:
8
With respect to any application to the United States Central Authority, or
9 any petition to a court under section 9003 of this title, which seeks relief
under the Convention, or any other documents or information included
10
with such application or petition or provided after such submission which
relates to the application or petition, no authentication of such application,
11
petition, document, or information shall be required in order for the
12 application, petition, document, or information to be admissible in court.

13 The statute addresses authentication requirements for documents submitted in connection with
14 a Hague Convention petition. It does not eliminate hearsay objections or otherwise permit the
15
automatic admission of affidavits, declarations, or unsworn statements at a contested evidentiary
16
hearing or trial. Although Hague Convention proceedings may, in some circumstances, proceed in a
17
summary manner, courts have recognized that the Federal Rules of Evidence continue to apply,
18
especially an evidentiary hearing is held. Respondent therefore reserves all evidentiary objections
19
20 under the Federal Rules of Evidence, including objections based on hearsay, relevance, foundation,
21 prejudice, and reliability.
22 Respondent may rely upon the following authorities:
23
24
19
25
PRETRIAL ORDER
(2:26-cv-00345-JHC)
26
i. Amsalem v. Amsalem, No. 1:19-cv-119-RP, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218812, at *11 (W.D.
1
Tex. Dec. 20, 2019).
2
3 ii. Danaipour v. McLarey, 386 F.3d 289, 301 (1st Cir. 2004); Jacquety v. Baptista, 538 F. Supp.
4 3d 325, 339 n.8 (S.D.N.Y. 2021).
5 iii. Luedtke v. Luedtke-Thomsen, No. 1:12-CV-750, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90584 at *2 (S.D.
6
Ind. June 29, 2012).
7
iv. Karkkainen v. Kovalchuk, 445 F.3d 280, 285 (3d Cir. 2006).
8
EXPERT WITNESSES
9
(a) No limitation is requested as to the number of expert witnesses, except as already provided by
10
virtue of the Court’s Scheduling order setting expert witness disclosure deadlines.

11
Father has filed a Motion in Limine (Daubert motion) regarding Mother’s proposed expert Dr.
12 Landon Poppleton, Dkt. # 47; Mother’s opposition has not yet been filed.

13 Father intends to timely file a Motion in Limine seeking the exclusion of Mother’s proposed
expert Dr. Jeffrey L. Edelson for failure to produce a report.
14
(b) The name(s) and addresses of the expert witness(es) to be used by each party at the trial and
15
the issue upon which each will testify is:
16
(1) On behalf of Petitioner:
17
Peter J. Favaro, Ph.D. – Rebuttal Expert
18 617 Port Washington Boulevard
Port Washington, NY 11050
19

20 Subject Matter: Dr. Favaro may testify in rebuttal to Respondent’s designated experts,
Dr. Landon Poppleton and Dr. Jeffrey L. Edelson. Petitioner has filed a Daubert motion
21 as to Dr. Poppleton. Petitioner will file a timely an objection and motion in limine
as to Dr. Edelson under Rules 26(a) and 37 for failure to produce a report
22 containing Dr. Edelson’s opinions.

23 (2) On behalf of Respondent:

24
20
25
PRETRIAL ORDER
(2:26-cv-00345-JHC)
26
Landon Poppleton, Ph.D., JD
1
814 NE 87th Ave,
Vancouver, WA 98664
2

3 Subject Matter: Dr. Poppleton is expected to testify regarding the opinions and
conclusions set forth in his expert report, including trauma, coercive control, family
4 dynamics, domestic violence-related harm, and the emotional and psychological impact
of the children’s exposure to the home environment at issue in this matter.
5
Jeffrey L. Edelson, Ph.D.
6
University of California,
7 120 Haviland Hall,
Berkeley CA 94720
8
Subject Matter: Dr. Edelson is expected to testify regarding research and professional
9 opinions concerning children’s exposure to domestic violence, coercive control, trauma,
family violence dynamics, and the resulting risk of physical and psychological harm to
10
children. Dr. Edelson is further expected to testify regarding whether return of the
children to Canada would expose the children to a grave risk of physical or psychological
11
harm or otherwise place the children in an intolerable situation within the meaning of
12 Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention.

13 OTHER WITNESSES

14 The names and addresses of witnesses, other than experts, to be used by each party at the time of trial
and the general nature of the testimony of each are:
15

16 PETITIONER

17 Father intends to call the following witnesses to testify during his case-in-chief:

18 A. Petitioner Dave Neil Speedie

19
Status: Will testify remotely
20
Subject Matter: Father will testify with regard to all facts set forth in his Verified
21 Amended Petition for Return of Children to Canada & For Expedited Relief and all
relevant averments made in Mother’s Answer. Father will testify with regard to all facts
22 to establish that: (1) the children’s habitual residence is Canada and was so on the date
that Mother retained the children in the United States; (2) Mother’s retention of the
23 children in the United States was in breach of Father’s rights of custody under Canadian
24
21
25
PRETRIAL ORDER
(2:26-cv-00345-JHC)
26
law at the time of the retention; and (3) Father had been exercising his rights of custody
1
at the time of Mother’s retention of the children.

2
B. Petitioner’s Mother, Lorri Sawatsky
3 398 Duclie Road Gambier Island BC V0N 1V0, Canada

4 Status: May testify remotely

5 Subject Matter: Ms. Sawatsky will testify with regard to facts set forth in Father’s
Verified Amended Petition for Return of Children to Canada & For Expedited Relief and
6
relevant averments made in Mother’s Answer. Ms. Sawatsky will testify with regard to
7 facts to establish that: (1) the children’s habitual residence is Canada and was so on the
date that Mother retained the children in the United States; (2) Mother’s retention of the
8 children in the United States was in breach of Father’s rights of custody under Canadian
law at the time of the retention; and (3) Father had been exercising his rights of custody
9 at the time of Mother’s retention of the children.

10
C. Petitioner’s Son, Oliver Speedie
6454 Lost Dog Forest Road TaTa Creek BC V0B 2H0 Box 136, Canada
11

12 Status: Will testify in person

13 Subject Matter: Mr. Speedie will testify with regard to facts set forth in Father’s Verified
Amended Petition for Return of Children to Canada & For Expedited Relief and relevant
14 averments made in Mother’s Answer. Mr. Speedie will testify with regard to facts to
establish that: (1) the children’s habitual residence is Canada and was so on the date that
15
Mother retained the children in the United States; (2) Mother’s retention of the children
16 in the United States was in breach of Father’s rights of custody under Canadian law at the
time of the retention; and (3) Father had been exercising his rights of custody at the time
17 of Mother’s retention of the children.

18 D. Fraser MacLean – Affiant of Canadian Law
MacLean Law
19
2900-1021 West Hastings Street
20 Vancouver, British Columbia
V6E 0C3
21 Canada

22 Status: Affidavit Only. The Petitioner will present Mr. MacLean’s Affidavit of Canadian
Law, which was electronically filed on May 15, 2026 (Dkt. #46), in accordance with this
23 Court’s Scheduling Order, article 14 of the Hague Convention, paragraph 101 of the
Perez Vera Report, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 44.1, Whallon v. Lynn, 230 F.3d 450,
24
22
25
PRETRIAL ORDER
(2:26-cv-00345-JHC)
26
458 (1st Cir. 2000), Radu v. Shon, 62 F.4th 1165, 1173 (9th Cir. 2023), and this Court’s
1
Order Denying Mother’s Motion to Compel (Dkt. #52).

2
Subject Matter: Father’s rights of custody under Canadian law; ameliorative measures.
3
RESPONDENT
4
Respondent intends to call the following witnesses:
5
a. Respondent, Alexi Dawn Speedie
6
5957 Longdin Road, Ferndale,
7 Washington 98248
Estimated Testimony Time: 2 hours
8
Subject Matter: May testify regarding all matters before the Court relating to the
9 Petition and Answer, and associated claims and defenses.
Will testify regarding the children’s living conditions in Canada, family dynamics,
10
Petitioner’s conduct, and matters relevant to Respondent’s Article 13(b) grave-risk
defense.
11

12 b. Petitioner, Dave Neil Speedie
6454 Lost Dog Forest Road,
13 TaTa Creek, B.C. V0B 2H0,
Canada
14 Estimated Testimony Time: 1.5 hours

15
Subject Matter: May testify regarding all matters before the Court relating to the
16 Petition and Answer, and associated claims and defenses.

17 c. Non-party minor child, A.N.
5957 Longdin Road, Ferndale, Washington 98248
18 Estimated testimony time: 30 minutes

19
Subject Matter: Will testify regarding the children’s experiences, wellbeing, and
20 matters relevant to the grave-risk defense.

21 d. Respondent’s Father, Carl Johnson
5957 Longdin Road, Ferndale,
22 Washington 98248
Estimated testimony time: 30 minutes
23
24
23
25
PRETRIAL ORDER
(2:26-cv-00345-JHC)
26
Subject Matter: Will testify regarding family dynamics, the children’s wellbeing, and
1
observations relevant to the grave-risk defense.

2
e. Respondent’s Mother, Nancy Johnson
3 5957 Longdin Road, Ferndale,
Washington 98248
4 Estimated testimony time: 15 minutes

5 Subject Matter: Will testify regarding the children’s living conditions in Canada,
family dynamics, and matters relevant to the grave-risk defense.
6

7 f. Petitioner’s former spouse’s current spouse, Sergio Velez
1660 Lacle Jeure Road, Kamloops,
8 B.C. V1S 172, Canada
Estimated testimony time: 15 minutes
9
Subject Matter: Will testify regarding personal observations of Petitioner’s conduct
10
and family dynamics.

11
g. Friend of Respondent, Det Harasuik
12 Address: PO Box 769, Wasa, B.C. V0B2K0
Estimated testimony time: 15 minutes
13
Subject matter: Will testify regarding observations of the property, living conditions in
14 Canada, and matters relevant to the grave-risk defense.

15
h. Friend of Respondent, Audrene Harasuik
16 Address: PO Box 769, Wasa, B.C. V0B2K0
Estimated testimony time: 15 minutes
17
Subject Matter: Will testify regarding observations of the children, family dynamics,
18 and matters relevant to the grave-risk defense.

19
i. Treating Psychologist, Jayme D. Fergoda, Ph.D., LICSW
20 1313 E Maple St UNIT 224, Bellingham, WA 98225
Estimated testimony time: 30 minutes
21
Subject Matter: Treating psychologist for the minor children; expected to testify
22 regarding the children’s emotional wellbeing, trauma-related symptoms, and
psychological functioning.
23

24
24
25
PRETRIAL ORDER
(2:26-cv-00345-JHC)
26
1
2
3
4
5 EXHIBITS
® || PETITIONER
7
Admissibili
8 1 Birth Certificate— | Stipulated Stipulated
LS.
9 (born in June 2018)
10 [Bates No.
DS000264
11 2 Birth Certificate— | Stipulated Stipulated
LS.
12 (born in September
2024)
13 [Bates No.
4 DS000263
3 Photographs of Stipulated Stipulated
[Bates No.
16 DS000082:
DS001608-001609
17 4 Parties’ Loan Stipulated Disputed 802
Request and Home
18 Construction Plan
19 for First Family
Home — May 2018
20 [Bates No.
DS000741
21
22
23
24
25
25 |) pRETRIAL ORDER
36 (2:26-cv-00345-JHC)

I 5 Loan Agreement Stipulated Disputed 802
2 with Respondent’s
Grandmother for
3 Construction of
First Family Home
4 May 2018
[Bates No.
5 DS000739
6 Loan Agreement Stipulated Disputed 802
Modification
7 November 18, 2018
[Bates No.
8 DS000738
7 Registration of Stipulated Disputed 802
9 Parties’ Land
10 Purchase in Ta Ta
Creek, British
11 Columbia for New
Family Home
12 November 2, 2020
[Bates Nos.
13 DS000745-000746
4 Provincial Court of | Stipulated Disputed 401
British Columbia
15 Consent Order —
Petitioner’s Two
16 Older Children
C.B.S. (bom in
17 2010) and Oliver
D.S. Speedie (age
18 19: born in 2006)
19 Entered June 28,
2021
20 [Bates Nos.
DS001597-001599
21
22
23
24
26
25 |) pRETRIAL ORDER
36 (2:26-cv-00345-JHC)

I Respondent’s Stipulated Disputed 401; 802
2 Family Newsletter
with Photographs
3 of Family Reunion
in TaTa Lake to
4 Build Parties’
Home
5 June 2023
6 [Bates Nos.
DS000755-000789
7 10 Father’s Day Card | Stipulated Stipulated
from Respondent to
8 Petitioner — June
16, 2024
9 [Bates Nos.
10 DS000265-000266
11 Canadian Revenue | Disputed Disputed 802
11 Agency Canada
Child benefit and
12 BC Family Benefit
Notice — Issued
13 September 20,
2024 [Bates Nos.
M4 DS001603-001607
15 12 Respondent’s Stipulated Stipulated
Renewed Canadian
16 Driver’s License —
October 14, 2024
17 [Bates No.
DS000734
18 13 Photographs of Stipulated Stipulated
19 Children and
Family in Canada —
20 2018-2025
[Bates Nos.
21 DS000790-000799
22
23
24
27
25 |) pRETRIAL ORDER
36 (2:26-cv-00345-JHC)

I 14 Certificate of Disputed Disputed 802
2 Insurance —
Canadian
3 Automobile
Insurance Policy
4 Covering
Respondent — April
5 2026 Policy
6 Renewal
[Bates No.
7 DS000733
15 Text Messages Stipulated Stipulated
8 Between Petitioner
and Respondent
9 July 21, 2024-May
10 6, 2025
[Bates Nos.
DS001277-001343
16 Emails Between Stipulated Stipulated
12 Petitioner and
Respondent
13 June 13, 2025-
August 15, 2025
14 [Bates Nos.
15 DS000875-000904
17 Demand Letter Disputed Disputed 802; 401
16 From Respondent’s
Mother for
17 Payment of 2018
Loan Balance in
18 Full
19 August 5, 2025
[Bates Nos.
0 DS000735-000737
21
22
23
24
28
25 |) pRETRIAL ORDER
36 (2:26-cv-00345-JHC)

I 18 Psychologist, Stipulated Stipulated
2 Michael
Sobocinski, Ph.D.
3 Treatment
Confirmation for
4 2025 and Invoice
Confirming
5 Ongoing Treatment
6 in 2026
[Bates Nos.
7 DS000086;
001347
8 19 Hague Convention | Stipulated Disputed 1002
Application
9 Submitted to the
10 Delegated Central
Authority of British
11 Columbia, Canada
(without
12 attachments)
November 24, 2025
13 [Bates Nos.
DS00003 1-000037
14 20 United States Disputed Disputed 802
15 Department of
State Letter to
16 Whatcom County
Superior Court
17 December 5, 2025
1g [Bates Nos.
DS000077-000079
19 21 Kimberly Royal Disputed Disputed 802
Canadian Mounted
20 Police Information
Check
21 October 22, 2025
(Submitted with
22 Hague Application)
3 [Bates Nos.
DS000083-000085
24
29
25 |) pRETRIAL ORDER
36 (2:26-cv-00345-JHC)

I 22 Petitioner’s Pro Se | Stipulated Stipulated
2 Petition for Return
of Children to
3 Canada
Dkt. #1
4 January 26, 2026
23 Petitioner’s Motion | Stipulated Stipulated
5 for Leave to File
6 Amended Petition
for Return
7 Dkt. #20
March 28, 2026
8 24 Petitioner’s Stipulated Stipulated
Amended Petition
9 for Return
10 Dkt. # 26
April 21, 2026
11 25 Respondent’s Stipulated Stipulated
Answer to
12 Amended Petition
for Return
13 Dkt. #32
4 April 24, 2026
26 Respondent’s Stipulated Stipulated
[Bates Nos.
16 DS000802-000839;
DS001600-001602
17 27 Respondent’s Stipulated Stipulated
Letters to Petitioner
18 [Bates Nos.
19 DS000800-000801;
0008 16-000821
20
21
22
23
24
30
25 |) pRETRIAL ORDER
36 (2:26-cv-00345-JHC)

I 28 Text Messages Stipulated Disputed 802
2 Between Petitioner,
Respondent, and
3 A.M.N.
(Respondent’s 17-
4 year-old daughter)
[Bates Nos.
5 DS001353-001368
fegmtic, | isee]
Canadian Law — comply with
7 Fraser MacLean FRCP 26
Dkt. # 46
8 30 Curriculum Vitae Disputed Disputed 802; Failure to
of Dr. Peter J. comply with
9 Favaro FRCP 26
10
11 || RESPONDENT
12
501 Whatcom County | Stipulated Disputed 802 (except
13 Court Case No. 25- for
14 2-0128-37 — Petitioner’s
Transcript of statements)
15 Proceedings
11/24/2025
16 502 | Text messages Stipulated Stipulated
between Petitioner
17 and Petitioner’s
ig mother, June 12,
2025
19 || |503__| AN’s drawings (2) □ Disputed __| Disputed [802
|504_| KN’s drawings (2) | Disputed | Disputed [802
20 || | 505__| LS’s drawings (2) | Disputed ___| Disputed | 802,
506 | Declaration of Stipulated Disputed 802
21 Respondent in
Whatcom County
Court Case No. 25-
23 2-02128-37, dated
October 9, 2025
24
31
25 |) pRETRIAL ORDER
36 (2:26-cv-00345-JHC)

I 507 | Text Message from | Stipulated Stipulated
2 Petitioner to
Respondent’s
3 parents, dated
October 8, 2025
4 508 | Petitioner’s Stipulated Stipulated
Pe
5 to AN
JE pee ee
to Respondent,
7 August 6, 2025
lesen
8 handwritten letter
to famil
9 511 Photo — axe Stipulated Stipulated
10 damage to kitchen
counter
eT
Canada (3
12 513 Photo — Petitioner, | Stipulated Stipulated
==
13 children in Canada
Plage ff
images from
15 Respondent and
family (7
16 515 | Photos of Stipulated Disputed 401
Respondent and
7 children in
18 Washington (10
516 | Photo — exposed Stipulated Stipulated
jo fitstason [ESE [Siete
□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ Stipulated _| Stipulated |
| ease fee fee
hole in outhouse
|e fame [Ses [Sees
» dishes
520 | Photo — Stipulated Stipulated
Pe. =
mother with IS
24
32
25 |) pRETRIAL ORDER
36 (2:26-cv-00345-JHC)

I 521 Photo — Stipulated Stipulated
2 Respondent’s father
with IS
(ESSE
LS
(aE = =
IS and LS (2
JS SP
6 — Respondent
525 Declaration of Stipulated Disputed 802
7 Respondent’s
8 October 9, 2025
526 | Email between Stipulated Disputed 802
Respondent and
10 KN’s father, dated
November 3, 2024
11 527 | Email from AN to | Stipulated Disputed 802
Respondent, dated
12 June 19, 2025
528 | Emails from Stipulated Stipulated
13 Petitioner to
14 Respondent, dated
June 26, 2025
15 529 Emails from Stipulated Stipulated
Petitioner to
16 Respondent, dated
July 16-17, 2025
17 530 | Emails from Stipulated Stipulated
18 Petitioner to
Respondent, dated
19 August 5, 2026
20 531 Email from Stipulated Stipulated
Petitioner to
21 Respondent, dated
August 6, 2025
23
24
33
25 |) pRETRIAL ORDER
36 (2:26-cv-00345-JHC)

I 532 | Email from Stipulated Stipulated
2 Petitioner to
Respondent, dated
3 August 8, 2025
Email from Stipulated Stipulated
4 Petitioner to
Respondent, dated
> August 14, 2025
Petitioner to
7 Respondent, dated
August 15, 2025
8 535 Police report Disputed Disputed 802
interviews of
9 Respondent and
10 children —
Whatcom County
11 Sheriff’s Office
[ome eet [Pome
12 entries (2
537 | Text messages Stipulated Stipulated
13 from Petitioner to
14 Respondent’s
mother
15 538 | Text Messages Stipulated Stipulated
16 and Respondent’s
father
17 539 | Treatment Stipulated Disputed 802
ig summaries of
children by Dr.
19 Jayme Fergoda
ee
20 Curriculum Vitae
541 Dr. Poppleton Stipulated Disputed 802 & MIL
21 report dated May
15, 2026
542 | Dr. Poppleton Stipulated Disputed
==="
May 15, 2026
24
34
25 |) pRETRIAL ORDER
36 (2:26-cv-00345-JHC)

Admissibili
543 | Dr. Edleson Stipulated Disputed
2 Curriculum Vitae
544 | Respondent’s Stipulated Disputed 802
3 College Acceptance
and 1098
4 545 Order for Stipulated Stipulated
5 Protection — in
Whatcom County
6 Court Case No. 25-
2-02128-37, dated
7 November 24, 2025
8 || The Parties’ Objection Code:
9 IE Exhibit is objectionable because it constitutes
10 attempted expert testimony from a person who was
not designated as an expert (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26
WFO Lack of foundation
[MIL Subject of Motion in Limine
12
13 Signature Page Follows
14
15 ACTION BY THE COURT
16 || (a) This case is scheduled for trial without a jury on June 2, 3, and 4, 2026 at 9:00 a.m.
17 (b) Trial briefs shall be submitted to the court on or before May 28, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. PDT.
18 This order has been approved by the parties as evidenced by the signatures of their counsel. This order
19 || Shall control the subsequent course of the action unless modified by a subsequent order. This order shall
not be amended except by order of the court pursuant to agreement of the parties or to prevent manifest
20 || injustice.
//
21
//
22
23
//
24
35
25 |) pRETRIAL ORDER
36 (2:26-cv-00345-JHC)

1 DATED this 29th day of May, 2026.

2

John H. Chun
4 || United States District Judge
5 || FORM APPROVED
6
7 /s/ Kelly A. Powers /s/ Molly Becker
Stephen J. Cullen Katrina Seipel, OSB No. 164793
8 Kelly A. Powers Katelyn D. Skinner, OSB No. 105055
Miles & Stockbridge P.C. Molly Becker, OSB No. 211511
9 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Buckley Law, P.C.
10 Suite 900 5300 Meadows Road, Suite 200
Washington, D.C. 20004 Lake Oswego, Oregon 97035
1 (202) 465-8374 (503) 620-8900
(410) 773-9100 (e-fax) (503) 620-4878 (fax)
12 scullen@milesstockbridge.com kas@buckley-law.com
kpowers@milesstockbridge.com kds@buckley-law.com
13 MB@buckley-law.com
/s/ Katherine E. Coyle
14 Katherine E. Coyle Pro Hac Vice Attorneys for Respondent,
15 Miles & Stockbridge P.C. Alexi Dawn Speedie
100 Light Street
16 Baltimore, Maryland 21202
(410) 385-3487
17 (410) 385-3700 (e-fax)
kcoyle@milesstockbridge.com
18
19 Pro Hac Vice Attorneys for Petitioner
20
21
22
23
24
36
25 || RETRIAL ORDER
(2:26-cv-00345-JHC)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11372386. Public record. Not legal advice.