Through its legal counsel, the government of Clackamas County is asking the circuit court to prevent the subpoena of Commissioner Ben West in the upcoming criminal trial of former Commissioner Melissa Fireside.

Fireside resigned from her position on the board of commissioners in March two days after she was indicted on felony charges related to the alleged swindling of an elderly man. The case is in its early stages, but Fireside’s lawyer issued a subpoena May 1 asking for West, who was particularly vocal in his castigation of Fireside throughout the process leading to her resignation, to appear in court later this month or submit “text records, call records, email records, audio recordings, written notes, photos, screenshots, videos, personal and private social media posts and messages, and/or reports relating to defendant, Melissa Fireside” from between Sept. 16, 2024 and the present to Kim Taylor with Virtus Group Investigations by May 12.

In response, on Thursday, May 8, Clackamas County filed a motion to quash the subpoena. In that filing, the county framed the subpoena as retribution against West for statements he had made about Fireside’s alleged conduct.

“In response to Commissioner West’s public statements, social media posts, and interviews concerning this criminal action, Defendant Fireside, through her attorney, has attempted to use a subpoena to pay retribution for the information she apparently did not want to hear,” the filing reads.

The county also revealed that, without mentioning a looming subpoena, Fireside’s attorney sent an email to the Clackamas County Board of Commissioners on Friday, April 25 calling into question the veracity of some of West’s statements and said the commissioner should cease and desist from further public statements.

“The integrity of the criminal justice process is critical, and he is inaccurately portraying the case. Again, this should have been apparent to Mr. West but apparently is not,” the letter reads.

Some of the county’s arguments for why the subpoena should not be allowed included: that West has no relevant information to provide within a case as he was not involved, that Fireside’s attorney can’t command the production of documents prior to trial and that the subpoena is “unduly vague, ambiguous, and overly broad.”

It added that a non-speculative showing of relevance is required for a subpoena.

“West has no relevant information or direct personal knowledge about the allegations in the indictment,” the filing reads.

The county also stated that, if West’s subpoena is allowed, an in-camera review of the documents produced should be required to assess “applicability of privileged or statutorily protected information.”

Relatedly, the county also speculated that Fireside might file claims against the county in the future. It said that some of West’s testimony could be subject to attorney-client privilege as well as work product doctrine, which protects certain information from being released in anticipation of future litigation.

In a separate letter, West supported the county’s motion to prevent the subpoena.

“I have no relevant information or direct personal knowledge about the allegations in the indictment. To the extent I have made any public statements on social media, or in any other public forum, all of my statements were based on information I obtained in the media,” West wrote.