Fed. Judge Denies Motion by Washington A.G. to Compel SAF Discovery in 3D Case

BELLEVUE, WA – A U.S. District Court judge in Seattle has denied a motion by the Washington State Attorney General’s office that sought to compel the Second Amendment Foundation and Defense Distributed to provide discovery responses in a lawsuit the state filed against the U.S. State Department relating to the publication of information about 3D printing of gun designs.

The four-page order was signed by U.S. District Court Judge Robert S. Lasnik on Friday. In his order, he reminded state Attorney General Bob Ferguson’s office that when a preliminary injunction was issued last August, it was not against the private defendants in the case, only the federal government. Ferguson’s office is suing the government, SAF and Defense Distributed, the source of computer design data relating to the production of 3D printed guns. In his ruling, Judge Lasnik noted, “the injunction issued in this case regulates the acts or omissions of the federal defendants: it imposes no duties or restrictions on the private defendants, but rather reinstates the pre-July 27, 2018, regulatory scheme related to access, discussion, use, and reproduction of the CAD files. Plaintiffs did not request relief from or against the private defendants, and the Court made clear at oral argument that the injunction itself did not require the private defendants to take or refrain from any activities…” He further reminded Ferguson’s office that, “…the private defendants are no more subject to the preliminary injunction than is any other person contemplating the export of computer data files that would allow the creation of guns and their components with a 3D printer.” “We’re glad Judge Lasnik reminded Ferguson’s office that they can’t change the rules and ask for more than they originally agreed to,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “As the judge noted in his ruling today, we haven’t violated any term or condition of the original order, and trying to make it appear that way by seeking to expand the scope of the injunction seems like legal harassment to us.”