# Clampitt v. Thurston County

> Washington Supreme Court · February 3, 1983 · 98 Wash. 2d 638

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9547829

## Case

- **Full name:** Delbert Clampitt, Et Al, Respondents, v. Thurston County, Defendant, David L. Hendrick, Petitioner
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** February 3, 1983
- **Citations:** 98 Wash. 2d 638; 658 P.2d 641; 9 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1206; 1983 Wash. LEXIS 1349
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Dore
- **Judges:** Dore, Utter
- **Cited by:** 11 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/9547829

## Opinion text

Dore, J.
(concurring in the result only)—The majority opinion, from a practical viewpoint, comes close to turning a reporter's limited privilege of nondisclosure into an absolute one. Majority suggestions and statements as
*650 Especially in light of the ease with which depositions could be taken, we see no reason why deposing 60 (and perhaps even more) planning employees was not a reasonable alternative to compelling reporter disclosure.
would put an intolerable financial burden on attorneys and their clients, and inevitably would make justice unavailable to injured parties. (Footnote omitted.) Majority, at 645-46. Getting 60 people together within 2 days, at the same place, and the suggestion in the footnote to limit each deposition to 15 minutes and two questions, seems overly optimistic. Even a veteran attorney might find such a task prohibitive.
Again on what basis do we have the authority to compel a superior court judge having jurisdiction of a matter, if he finds that the issue of requiring reporter disclosure is a close one, be mandated
on its own motion or that of a party, [to] order a change of venue to the court in which the underlying action is pending.
(Footnote omitted.) Majority, at 648-49. I don't believe this court has the authority to restrict or prohibit the constitutional powers of a superior court judge in making a decision. 9
Const. art. 4, § 6 (amend. 28).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9547829. Public record. Not legal advice.