parmalee v king county

8/6/2019 Parmalee v King County

1/65

COA No. 62937-9-ICOURT OF APPEALS OF WASHINGTON

FOR DIVISION ONE

ALLAN PARMELEEAppel lant - Defendant - Counterc la im P la i n t i f f

vs.KING COUNTY [JAIL]

DEPARTMENT OF ADULT AND JUVINILE DETENTIONAppellee - p l a i n t i f f - Counterc la im Defendant

AMENDED OPENING BRIEF OF APPELLANT

.-(:') -n:;:::, 'w"

1 t = - ~ ' \ : . "" ......


2/65

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page(s)I - Assignme'nts of Error .Oll .Review 1A. Assignments of E r ro r 1B. Issues Per ta in ing to Assignments of Er ro r 21 !I I - Statement of th e Case 3I I I - Argument 10A. Summary Judgment Standards Are Unique to PRA 101.True or Not, A Records Reques tor ' s [Disputed]

Reputa t ion, Race, Criminal , P o l i t i c a l ,Li t iga t ion Histo ry o r Reputa t ion I s NotRelevant Per RCW 42.56.080 And Should HaveBeen St r icken Per C R - 1 2 ( f ) ~ 12( i ) Trash Talk Does Not Support Alleged Fac t u a lConclusions Nor Does It Meet The RequiredLegal Standards 16

2. The Tr i a l Court Could Not Rel iab ly DetermineI f PRA Exemptions Were Properly Applied By TheAgency In F u l l Or P ar t Without an In-CameraReview Per RCW 42.56.550(3 16

3. The Tr i a l Court Denied Parmelee Due Process ByDenying Him A ll Discovery And Time To OpposeBoth In junc t ion Motions 194. When The T r i a l Cour t Said "This Case I s I'DISMISSED" It Terminated The J a i l ' s Claims

With Pre jud ice ~ . 2 2 5. The Sta tu tory Exemptions Were Wrongly AppliedAnd Publ ic Records Determined Non-DisclosableWere Incor rec t ly Construed Exempt And


3/65

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page(s )( iv) Phone Numbers Are Not Exempt PerRCW 42.56.420 Because They Are NotTer ro r i s t Prevention Cr i t i c a l RecordsAnd The Necessary Cr i t e r i a Was Not Met,While Disc los ing The Same InformationTo Opponents And St rangers 30

6. After Obtain ing a .F inal Judgment Pending onAppeal, Without o f This Cour t Per RAP 7 .2 ,The J a i l Fi led an In su f f i c i en t l y Pled o n e ~ P a g e Motion, Also Without Complying With C R ~ 8 &KCLR- 7 (b) ( 5 ) 31

7. This Case Should Have Been Consol idated WithThe Other King County Cases Per CR-19 andCR-42 To Avoid Col la t e ra l Estoppel , ResJud i ca t t a and Standing Defects Barr ing Thisand Other Act ions ............... 34

8. The Second. In junc t ion Lacked Suff i c i en tAdmissable Evidence , Denied Parmelee DueProcess and Relying on RCW 42.56.565 Was BothFac ia l ly and As-Applied Uncons t i tu t iona l 35( i ) The Second In junc t ion Lacked Suff i c i en tAdmissable Non-Conclusory EvidenceNecessary to Suppor t i t s DraconianResu l t 36( i i )The New PRA Sta tu te RCW 42.56.565 CannotBe Applied Retroac t ive ly Because it St r i p sAway Rights to Previous Transact ionsWithout a Sta tu to ry Provision To


4/65

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page(s)q . Parmelee Should Be Awarded PRA Pena l t i e s , Feesand Costs Related to the Records and ThisAppeal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 50

V ;- Conclusion 50C e r t i f ic a t e o f SerVice ............................... 51Attachment-A (King County Local Rule , KCLR-7) 52s t a t e Cases Cited Page(s)1000 Virg in i a Limited Par tne r sh ip v. ~ o l a s u r d u , 120 Wn.2d 170, 685 P.2d 1074 (1984) 43Abad v . Coza, 128 Wn.2d 575 , 911 P.2d 37 6 (1996) 20Adrox v. Chi ld ren ' s Hospi ta l ,123 Wn.2d 15, 804 P.2d 921 (1993) 43Bryant v. Joseph Tree , Inc .

119 Wn.2d 210, 829 P.2d 1099 (1999) 15Burt v . D.O.C. , Wn.2d , P.3d , .# 80998-4, 2010

WL 1909570 (Wash. S u p r . C ~ M a y 13, 2010) 42Brou l le t v. Cowles Publ i sh ing ,114 Wn.2d 788, 791 P.2d 426 (1990) 21Cla l l an v . Cla l l an ,2 Wn.App. 446, 468 P.2d 456 (1970) 23Carson v. Fine , 123 Wn.2d 206, 867 P.2d 610 (1994) 14Clarke v. s t a t e Attorney Genera l ' s Of f i ce ,133 Wn.App. 767, 138 P.3d 144 (2006) 20


5/65

TABLE OF CONTENTS

s t a t e Cases Cited Page(s)Havens v . C & D Pla s t i c s , In c . ,124 Wn.2d 158, 876 P.2d 435 (1994) 10Hears t v . Hoppe, 90 Wn.2d 123, 580 P.2d 246 (1978) 30Holland v . Ci ty of Tacoma,90 Wn.App. 533, 954 P.2d 290 (1998) 33In Re Rosi re , 105 Wn.2d 606, 717 P.2d 1353 (1986) 25Johnson v . Associated Oil ,170 Wash. 634, 17 P.2d 44 (1932) 14King County v . Sheehan,. 114 Wn.App. 325, 59 P.3d 307 (2002) passimKing County Prosecu t ing At to rney ' s Of f i ce r , e t a I , v .Parmelee , King County Super io r c t . # 07-2-39332-2,Supreme c t . # 82669-8 . 35King County She r i f f ' s Off ice v. Parmelee , King County

Super io r c t . # 08-2-22251-9 SEA, Cour t ofAppeals (COA) # 62938-7-I 5,35Kirk v . Washington S ta t e Univers i ty ,109 Wn.2d 448, 746 P.2d 285 ( 1 9 8 7 ) . . . . . 14Klevin v . Ci ty o f Des Moines,111 Wn.App. 284, 44 P.3d 887 (2002) . 15,24Koenig v. Ci ty o f Des Moines,158 Wn.2d 1 7 3 , 1 4 2 P.3d 162 (2006)l1,13,27,29,42Lean v . Demopolis,62 Wn.App. 173,815 P.2d 269(1991) 33Lindeman v . Kelso School D i s t . ,


6/65

TABLE OF CONTENTS

s t a t e Cases Cited Page(s)Rains v . s t a t e , 100 Wn.2d 660, 674 P.2d 165 (1983) 35Reed v . StreiilQ,65 Wn.2d 700, .399 P.2d338 (1965) 15Reese v. St roh , 128 Wn.2d 300, 907 P.2d 282 (1995) 39Sea t t l e F i re f igh te rs Union V . H o l l i s t e r ,48 Wn.App. 129, 737 P.2d 1302 (1987) 17,27Sea t t l e F i r s t Nat ional Bank V . Marsha l l , .16 Wn.App. 503, 557 P.2d 352 (1976) 34Seeley v . S ta t e ,132 Wn.2d 776, 940 P.2d 604 (1997) 46Soter v. Cowles Publ ishing Co. ,16 2 Wn.2d 716, 174 P ~ 3 d 60 (2007) 25,26 ,29 ,50Spokane Pol ice Guild V. Liquor Cont ro l Board,11 2 Wn.2d 30, 769 P.2d 283 (1989) 17,30Spokane Research & Defen$e Fund v. Ci ty o f Spokane,95 Wn.App. 568, 983 P.2d 676 (1999) 19,27Sta te v . Armendarez,160 Wn.2d 106, 156 P.3d 201 (2007) 11Sta te ex. r e I . , Lynch v . Pe t t i j o n ,34 Wn.2d 437, 209 P.2d 320 (1949) 22Sta te v. J-R D is t r i b u to r s ,

111 Wn.2d 764, 765 P.2d 281 (1988) 32Sta te v. Kilburn,

151 Wn.2d 36, 84 P.3d 1215 (2005) 38,47Stee l v . Queen City Broadcas t ing ,


7/65

TABLE OF CONTENTS

s t a t e Cases Ci ted Page(s)W.R. Grace v . s t a t e Dept . of Revenue,137 W.2d 580, 973 P.2d 1011 (1999) 34Yacobel l i s v . Ci ty of Bell ingham,55 Wn.App. 706, 780 P.2d 272 (1989) 10Yousoufian v . Office of Ron Sims,165 Wn.2d 439, 200 P.3d 232 (2009) 24Zink v. Ci ty of Mesa,140 Wn.App.328, 166 P.3d 738 (2007) 16,38,40

Federa l and U.S. Supreme Court Cases Ci ted Page(s)Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v . Hercules ,146 F.3d 1011 (9th C i ~ . 1998) 21Bar tn ick i v . Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001) 48Brandenburg v . Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) 47Broadr ick v . Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973) 50Dauber t v . Merrel Dow Pharaceu t i ca l s ,509 U.S. 579 (1993) 39Erie Rai l road v . Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) 44Erzonozik v . City of Jacksonv i l l e ,422 U.S. 205 (1975) . 50Flor ida S ta r v . B.J .F . , 491 U.S. 524 (1989) 48,49Gertz v . Rober t Welch, Inc . , 418 U.S. 323 (1974) 30Gooding v . Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (1974) 38


8/65

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Federa l and u.S . Supreme Court Cases Cited Page(s)Reno v .Sheehan ACLU, 521

u.S .v. Gregoire"

844 (1997) .. 50272 F.Supp.2d 1135 (W.O. Wash.2003)38,48,49,50

Simpson v. Thomas, 528 F.3d 685 (9 th Cir . 2008) 14,40s t a t u t e s CitedRCW 4.28 .080(15)5 U . S ~ C . 552 (FOIA)RCW 7 .24 . e t seq.RCW 7.40 . e t seq . ,RCW 9A.76.180.RCW 10.14.020.RCWRCW 42.56, e t seq . ,46.20.118 Court Rules Cited

Page(s).28 1 3.24.25.37

. .16 ,37

.passim.28Page(s)

CR-5CR-7.

. . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . .1 ,32 ,33 ,36. . 1 ,3 ,32 ,33 ,36

( K C L R ) ~ 7 1,9 ,31 ,32 ,33 ,36 1,2 ,9 ,31 ,34 ,35King County Local Rule 1,2 ,34 ,35

CR-8 CR-10.


9/65

TABLE OF CQNTENTS

Court Rules Cited (Con t ' d l Page(s)CR- 58 ......................................... 22CR-59. 8CR- 6 0 (b) .................................... 9 , 32 , 33CR-65 .............................. _ ............ . 4,25Evidence Rules (ER)-401 13,40 ,44ER- 402 . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .1 4 , 44ER-403ER-406.ER-40B.ER-602.ER-60B.ER-609.ER-613.ER-701.ER-702.ER-B02.ER-B06.

404 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,40 ,44.2 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,41 ,44 ...... 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 _ 21.39 .......................................... . 39,44 ..................... 44

Rules of Appel la te Procedure (RAP)-5.1 . .21.B.BAP- 5 . 4 ......................

RAP- 6 . 1 ...................... B, 31. 1 ,2 ,9 ,31 ,32AP-7.2.


10/65

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Washington Adminis t ra t ive Codes Ci ted Page(s)WAC-137-0B-, e t s eq . , 42WAC- 4 4 -1 4 - 0 2 0 ( 3 ) 1 3WAC-44-1"4-040 (1 ) 13WAC- 4 4-1 4 - 0 4003 ( 1) & (2) . 1 3WAC-44-14-07001(1) . 39WAC-44-14-08004(6) .................17

Trea t i s e & Misc . Cited Page(s)House B i l l s (61s t Legis la tu re ) , HB-2259, HB-1253,HB-1255, HB-2337 29Washington I n s t i t u t e fo r Publ ic Pol i cy : New Risk

Ins t rument For Offenders : Improves C las s i f i c a t i o nDecis ions , March 2009 (ava i l ab le a tWWW.WSIPP.WA.GOV) 41Tegland, Vol. 15, Washington Prac t ice , C iv i l Procedure , 44.10 (2009) 39

WSBA's Publ ic Records Act Deskbook: washing ton ' sPubl ic Disc losure and Open Meetings Laws(2006) ("pRA Deskbook) passim


11/65

I - ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR ON REVIEW:A. ASsignments o f Error :

1. Did th e t r i a l cour t e r r o r by denying Parmelee ' sCR-12(f) motion to s t r ike opin ions and scandalousmat ter about the records r eques to r whenRCW 42.56.080 proh ib i t s the i den t i t y of the recordsr eques to r from being cons idered and RCW 42.56.100r equ i r es th e f u l l e s t a s s i s t a n c e to the recordsr eques to r by the agency?

2. Did the t r i a l cour t e r ro r by b l ind ly accept ing th eAgency 's word fo r what the publ ic records cons is tedof without an in-camera review per RCW 42.56 .550(3)?3. Did the t r i a l cour t de ny t he r e c o rds reques tor dueprocess by denying him any a b i l i t y to conduct anydiscovery wi th in the scope of CR-26(b) to probe anddispute f ac t s and con ten t ions a l l eged by the Agency?4. Did the t r i a l cour t e r ro r by concluding " a l l KingCounty agencies were to be a par ty in the f i na l : ~ . order without being named under CR-8, CR-10 o r CR-.17and CR-19, without any p r i o r no t i ce to ~ a r m e l e e ? 5. Did the t r i a l cour t e r ro r by agree ing t h a t thereques ted records were exempt from d isc losu re under

.RCW 42.56 .050, .230, .240 .420 , and t ha t "metadata"of e lec t ron ic records a re no t "publ ic records?"


12/65

9. Did the t r i a l cour t e r r by re fus ing to compeld i sc losure and re l a t ed PRA p en a l t i e s underRCW .42.56.550 (4) , and Should Parmelee be awarded f ees ,cos t s and p en a l t i e s on appeal?B. Issues Per ta in ing to Assignments o f Error :

1. The t r i a l cour t con t rad ic t ed i t s e l f when itpermit ted King County to pre sen t and r e ly of " t r a sh t a lk" about the records reques tor when RCW 42.56.080and .100 proh ib i t it, and denying Parmelee ' s CR-12(f)motion to s t r i k e . (Assignments 1 , 3, 5 & 8 ) .

2. Th e t r i a l cour t er red when it denied Parmelee ' smotion fo r in-camera review p er RCW 42.56.550(3)l eaving the cour t with no way t o s u f f i c i e n t lydetermine i f the r espec t ive records are what KingCounty cla ims they a re , poses th e r i sk s a l l egedand if the claimed exemptions a re proper ly app l i ed .( A s s i g n ~ e n t s 2, 7 & 8 ) .

3. The t r i a l cour t denied Parmelee due process when itdenied Parmelee a l l CR-26(b) discovery necessary tooppose and probe the many f ac tua l a l l ega t ions madeby King County about P a r m e l ~ e , t h e i r opinions ofhim, the respec t ive records , and if and what r e a lr i sks exis ted in th e records ' d isc losu re .(Assignments 3, 7 & 8 ) .

4. The t r i a l cour t er red by f a i l i ng to requ i re the J a i lto name a l l re l a t ed pa r t i e s ending up in the f i na l


13/65

without complying with CR-7 and King County LocalRule KCLR-7(b)(5). (Assignment 7 ) .8. The t r i a l cour t e r red when it f a i l ed to ru l e onparmelee ' s response t h a t RCW 42.56.565 i s f ac i a l l yand as -app l i ed uncons t i tu t iona l on overbreadth ,vagueness and F i r s t Amendment grounds.(Assignment 8 ) .9.. The t r i a l cour t e r red by r e fus ing to orde r th erequested records r e leased to parmelee and i n 'awarding PRA pena l t i e s and fees p er RCW 42.56 .550(4) ,he a l so seeks now on appea l . (Assignment 9 ) .I I - STATEMENT OF THE CASE:

Mr. Parmelee submit ted Public Records Act *1 r eques t sr e l a t i ng to h i s own mist rea tment , unprovoked assau l t s onhim by King County J a i l of f i c i a l s as widespread cover-upsand prac t i ces and po l i c i e s of the J a i l where pr i sonerabuses are commonplace and anyone seeking to oppose ita re deemed "unfavorable" and again mal iCiously a t t ackedl ike th e J a i l d id to Parmelee in t h i s case .CP-1206-14433.

Parmelee sought proof , th e c o r r e c t i de n t i t y o f , and


14/65

CP-1183-1205.King County Dept. of Adult and Juven i l e Detent ion

( " Ja i l " ) f i l ed the th i rd s u i t aga ins t Parmelee on Ju ly 2,2008, al leg ing a myriad of conclusory and sensa t iona lc la ims aga ins t Parmelee who dared to a t tempt to succeedin exerc i s ing any protec ted F i r s t Amendment r i gh t s shouldj u s t i f y denying him any and a l l publ ic records fo r anyreason . CP-1-14. Parmelee f i l ed an answer and a f f i rma t ivedefense contending among other th ings the J a i l caused orcont r ibu ted to any r i sks they c la im ex i s ted and r e l i ed on toseek den ia l of publ ic records to him. CP-15-21.

On Ju ly 4, 2008 and again on Ju ly 24, 2008, Parmeleeserved the J a i l with CR-68 and ER-408 of f e r s to withdrawa l l h is PRA reques t s and waive anycos ts , fees and PRApena l t i e s otherwise ava i l ab le per RCW 42.56 .550(4) , i fth e J a i l would drop i t s l awsu i t . CP-1173-1179, CP-1180-


15/65

a t i s sue in t h i s case to determine i f th e claimedexemptions were cor rec t ly app l ied /and if some documentscould be re leased a f t e r p a r t i a l redac t ions per RCW42.56 .210. CP-36-42. The J a i l objec ted cla iming th eCourt had no au thor i ty to conduct any such review. CP-96-98.Parmelee r ep l ied contending t ha t the J a i l mis in te rp re t sand d i s t o r t s the motion and th e PRA prov i s ion j u s t i f y ingth e reques t . CP-1457-1461. Denying most of Parmelee ' smotion on December 4, 2008, contending th e cour t hada l ready pre-decided a l l the i s sues in the case , th e t r i a lcour t only asked to see a p ic tu re example in e lec t ron icformat to determine if re la ted "metadata" was d isc losab le .CP-1029. On December 30, 2008, th e cour t held t h a t evenm e t a d a ~ was not a publ ic record nor was it d isc losab le .CP-1049-1050. (a lso see exac t same ru l ing in King CountyS h e r i f f ' s Office v. Parmelee, # 08-2-22251-9 SEA, COA #


16/65

On July 17, 2008, Parmelee f i l e d a motion per RCW42.56.080 and CR-12(f) to s t r i ke the Jail's " t r a sh - t a l k "about him because . the accusa t ions w e r ~ inadmissab le ,immater ia l and scandalous matter as wel l as i n s u f f i c i e n t lysuppor ted in both l eg a l and fac tua l t e rms . C P ~ 2 6 ~ 3 5 . TheJ a i l responded contending t h a t among o t h e r th ings , Parmelee ' sexerc i se of protec ted F i r s t Amendment r i gh t s shouldproper ly be r e l i e d on by an agency to oppose publ icrecords reques t s , and any " t r a s h t a lk " about him, t rue o rnot , supported t h e i r case desp i t e RCW 42.56.080 and .100proh ib i t i ng such cons ide ra t ions . CP-90-95.

Parmelee r ep l ied contending t h a t th e PRA d id notc rea te a forum to allow t ra sh - t a lk ing a recordsreques to r o r permi t such sensa t iona l i sm in tended toinf lame and d i s t r a c t th e cour t from th e r e a l i s suessuch as i f and h ~ s a s t a tu to ry ememption app l ied to


17/65

to governmental func t ions and persons, Parmelee submitted1 3 - in t e r r o g a to r i e s and 1B-reques t s - to -p roduce p ~ r C R - 2 6 ( b ) ~ Without conduct ing any of the requi red meet-and-conferrequirements of CR-26(i ) , on Novermber 17, 200B the J a i lf i l ed a motion to quash a l l discovery . They contendedt h a t t he cour t had a l ready decided a l l th e i s sues inthe case , desp i te no f i n a l orders having been i s sued .CP-1025-102B, CP-1006-1020. No such orders disposing ofth e i s sues had been en te red , u n t i l December 30, 200Bdeciding th e e n t i r e case . CP-104B, fl B. Parmelee ' sresponse , CP-1021-1024, objec ted to th e discoverysuppression and the t r i a l cour t admit ted it had pre-decidedth e e n t i r e case on December 4, 200B, CP-1025-102B, desp i teno such orders having been en te red . The t r i a l cour ts t a t ed Parmelee had no r i g h t to probe the f ac tu a l cla imsof th e J a i l in any way and t he cour t would remain


18/65

pena l t i e s with a suppor t ing dec la ra t ion *2 contendingamong o ther th ings , the evidence presented f a i l ed toes t ab l i s h as r e levan t evidence r e a l fac t s under theRules of Evidence to suppor t non-disc losure . CP-1183-1205,CP-1206-1443. The J a i l f i l e d t h e i r r ep ly , CP-997-1002,and another dec la ra t ion , CP-989-996, cla iming the PRAr eques t s were merely a b ig scheme fo r an unfa i reconomic venture desp i t e Parmelee ' s pr i o r o f f e r s to s e t t l ethe cases , and any i nqu i ry i n to pr i soner abuses was"harassmen t . " CP-1173-.1179, CP-1180-1182 -and CP-1 064-1 065.

Based on the Jail's proposed order they presented to. the t r i a l cour t t h a t was granted in its e n t i r e t y , as- . is ,on December 30, 2009, ra i sed 2-problems. CP-1038-1048,CP-1049-1050. Bel ieving th e orde r had been enterede a r l i e r , Parmelee f i l ed a CR-59 motion to r econs ide r


19/65

The Cour t of Appeals accepted review per RAP 6.1 onJanuary 28, 2009. CP-1051.

Without f i l i ng any CR-60(b) motion and desp i t e" the case being dismissed ," C P - 1 0 4 8 , ~ 8, the J a i l f i l eda one-page motion seeking a second in junct ion in t h i scase without leave of t h i s cour t as requi red by RAP 7 .2 -RAP 7 .3 . CP-1066. The motion fa i l ed to comply with KingCounty Local Rule KCLR-7(b)(5)(B) and CR-8 by i nd ica t ingwhat f ac t s and law it r e l i ed on such as what re su l t ed inthe 14-page order . CP-1142-1155. The J a i l a l so f a i l ed tof i l e the requi red Note-For-Motion form requi red by KCLR-7(b)(5) (A) . Parmelee s e n t the t r i a l cour t a l e t t e rind ica t ing object ions and reques ted t ime and CR-26(b)discovery to respond. CP-1117-1120. It was denied onJune 19, 2009, CP-1072, and the J a i l ' s second in junc t ionagain granted as proposed . CP-1142-1155.


20/65

)

1129, CP-1444-1456. The Court con t inued the secondin junc t ion on Ju ly 1 , 2009, again denying Parmelee ' sreques t fo r CR-26(b) discovery and fo r t ime to accessth e case and evidence r ~ l a t e d f i l ed in pr i son to presen ta defense . CP-1117-1120, CP-1123-1129, CP-1466-1468, CP-1130-1141. The t r i a l c o u r t en tered its second permanentin junc t ion in t h i s case on August 24, 2009. CP-1142-1155,CP-1156.

Again, Parmelee t imely f i l ed a supplementa l appea lon September 23, 2009. CP-1157-1172.II I - ARGUMENT:

A. Summary Judgment Standards Are Unique To PRA Cases .Even in PRA cases , summary judgment i s appropr i a t e

only when th e pleadings, [admissib le] evidence and3 f f i d a v i t s , re l evan t i n t e r ro g a t o r i e s , deposi t ions andmat e r i a l f ac t s show t h a t no genuine i s sues of mate r i a l


21/65

viewing a l l f a c t s in l i g h t most favorable to the non-moving par ty (Parmelee) . RCW 42 .56 .550(3 ) ; WilliamsonInc . v . Ca l ibre Homes I nc . , 147 Wn.2d 394,398,54 P.3d 1186(2002); Prison Legal News v . D.O.C. , 154 Wn.2d 628,635-36,115 P.3d 316 (2005). Courts must cons t rue the PRAbroadly favoring d isc losu re , and any proper ly appl iedexemptions narrowly. Id . , RCW 42.56 .030.

PRA cases are normally l im i t ed to i s sues of law andif a s t a tu tory exemption app l ie s , r egard l es s of who asksfo r th e record and r egard l es s of t h e i r al leged non-commercial purposes . RCW 42.56 .080, .100 & . 550(1 ) - (3) .Koenig v . City of Des Moines, 158 Wn.2d 173,183,142 P.3d162 (2006) . Cour ts may no t , however, look beyond th ep la in language of th e s t a tu t e i f th e p la in languagei t s e l f i s unambiguous. s t a t e v . Armendarez, 160 Wn.2d 106,

,

110,156 P 3:d 201 (2007). Only i f and when a s t a tu t e i s


22/65

1 . True Or Not, A Records Requesto r ' s [Disputed]Reputa t ion , Race, Criminal . Pol i t i ca l , Li t i g a t i o nHisto ry Or Reputa t ion Not R e ~ e v a n t P erRCW 42.56.080 And Should Have Been St r i ckenPer CR-12(f) .

Mr. Parmelee ' s records reques ts a re governed byRCW 42.56.080 which p r o h ib i t s an agency and cour t fromc o n s i d e ~ i n g mat te rs about a records reques tor or thenon-commercial purposes o f th e reques t s . RCW 42.56.100places an a f f i rma t ive duty on an Agency to provide th e' ~ u l l e s t a s s i s t a n c e ' t o a records reques t . Meaning, theJ a i l ' s " t r ash t a lk " about who P a r n i e l e ~ i s and what theyo r others th ink o f him such as what h is p o l i t i c a l ,re l ig ious , sexual , c r imina l , j o u r n a l i s t i c , l eg a l o ride log ica l mat ters should be i n a d m i s S i p l e ~ s c a n d a l o u s mat te r the cour t should have s t r i cken per CR-12(f) asParmelee reques ted . CP-26-35.

The con t ro l l ing s t a t u t o ry language o f RCW 42.56.080


23/65


24/65

P r o d ~ v . Pie r re , 84 Wn.App. 608,929 P.2d 494 (1977).Under ER-402, i r r e l evan t evidence such as the J a i l

presented about Parmelee ' s charac te r o r r epu ta t ion had nobear ing on i f a s t a tu tory PRA exemption appl ied per RCW42.56 .030, .070 and . 550(1) - (3) , and should have beens t r i cken as inadmiss ib le . Johnson v . Associa te Oil ,, .170 Wash.634,17 P.2d 44 (1932)(s imi lar con t r ac t s o r o the rt r ansac t ions a re i r r e l evan t ) ; L ata i l l e v. Ponte , 754 F.2d33,31> (1s t .C i r .1985) (pr i sone r ' s d i sc ip l ina ry record i snot admissable in 1983 case aga ins t p r i son guards underevidence ru les 404 o r 6 0 8 ( b ; Simpson v . Thomas, 528 F.3d685 (9th Cir.2008) ( s imi la r ) .

Trash t a lk by the J a i l abou t Parmelee i s alsoexcludable under ER-403. Carson v. F ine , 123 Wn.2d 206,867 P.2d 610 (1994)(ER-403 must be adminis teredevenhandedly) . It i s more than


25/65

in an e f f o r t to avoid d i s c lo s u r e . Dickerson v. Chadwel l ,Inc . , 62 Wn.App.426,814 P.2d 687 (1991).

Fur thermore , th e Jail's t ra sh t a lk about Parmeleef a i l s CR-11(b)(2) & (3) . Bryant v . Joseph Tree I n c . ,119 Wn.2d 210,829 P.2d 1099 (1999) . Parmelee could havehidden behind a lawyer to submit PRA reques t s and thea t to rney could not be compelled to i den t i fy h i s o r herc l i e n t th e reques ts a re being made fo r to avoid t h i svery t h ing . Klevin v. City o f Des Moines, 111 Wn.App.284,

291,44 P.3d 887 (2002) .C R - 1 2 ( f ~ provides the remedy to c lean up such cases

s t r ik ing and re focus ing the i s sues to re l evan t fac t sgained by s t r ipp ing away th e scandalous t ra sh t a l k ,sensa t iona l i zed rh e t o r i c , imper t inen t and immater ia lmate r i a l the J a i l f looded th e case f i l e with , Parmeleet imely sought to s t r i k e . CP-26-35, CP-1462-1465. Such


26/65

dicovery to probe fo r va l id i t y , l eav ing th e case littlemore than a Circus a c t by the J a i l ' s performance.CP-1309-1316, CP-1317-1326.

( i ) Trash Talk Does Not Suppor t AllegedFactual Conclusion Nor Does It Meet TheRequired Legal Standards .For example, the J a i l claimed Parmelee ' s PRA

reques t s were designed to "harass" the County withoutmeeting any re l a t ed s t a tu tory de f in i t i on such asRCW 10.14.020.

F i r s t , RCW 42.56.030 permits Parmelee to makesuch r eques t s and RCW 42.56.080 proh i b i t s a rear -v iew-mirror examinat ion of the records r eques to r in a PRAcase . Because th e PRA i s a " lawful" mat ter and i t spurpose i r r e l evan t , it cannot be al leged as harassment .Zink v. Ci ty of Mesa, 140 Wn.App.328,333,337-338,343-344,166 P.3d 738 (2007) (c i t i zen issued 172 PRA reques t s th e


27/65

by RCW 42.56.030 as the J a i l was permi t ted to do here .Parmelee contes ted t ha t the records a t i s sue in t h i scase where what the agency claimed they were, and t ha tthey posed any unreasonable r i s k s they claimed and ifpor t ions were proper ly exempt, an in-camera review wasr equ i red to determine t h i s and if pa r t s could be redac tedand r e l eased i n pa r t per RCW 42.56 .070(1) and .210 , perRCW 42.56 .550(3) . CP-36-42, CP-96-98, CP-1457-1461,CP-1209 & CP-1049-1050 & r e l a t ed CD Exhibi t des igna ted .

WAC-44-14-08004(6); PRA Deskbook, Ch-16 .2 (5 ) .While the J a i l was al lowed to argue withou t suppor t

by producing any re l a t ed records fo r in-camera review,they contended t h a t var ious . s ta tu tory exemptions appl ieddesp i t e pr i o r holdings they d id no t apply in f u l l or p a r t ,such as in Sheehan, 114 Wn.App. @ 342-49; Spokane Pol iceGuild v. Liquor Control Bd, 112 Wn.2d 30,38,769 P.2d 283


28/65

forms, RCW 42.56.010(2) & (3 ) , even by each person int h e i r normal course o f l i f e and /or opera t ions o fgovernment , revealed in f u l l o r p a r t who governmento f f i c i a l s a r e , how they conduct themselves , t h e i r p ic tu resand f a c i a l images, gender , r ace , [ a p p r o ~ i m a t e ] age andothe r informat ion such as to enable them to be r e l i a b lyi d e n t i f i e d and di s t ingu i shed from ano ther such as onl e t t e r s , gr ievances , memos, by being present , s igningand/or par t i c ipa t ing in th e "normal course of [abus ive]business involving th e c i t i z e ns o f Washington and othe rmat te rs : ' They claimed to r ev ea l t h i s same in fo rmat ionthrough PRA reques t s v io la ted t he i r r i g h t to pr ivacy perRCW 42.56.050, bu t f a i l i ng to d is t ingu ish it from pr iva tenon-government employee 's pr ivacy r i gh t s . PRA Deskbook,Ch.13.

Parmelee requested , the J a i l re fused to i den t i fy any


29/65

to do so . Spokane Research & Defense Fund v . City o fSpokane, 95 Wn.App.568,577,983 P.2d 676 (1999)(" the be t t e rprac t ice i s to conduct an in-camera i n spec t ion . In -

inspec t ion enhances th e t r i a l c o u r t ' s a b i l i t y toassess th e nature of the documents, decide appl icableexemptions, and per form necessary r e d a c t i o n . " ) .

The record a p t t ~ i l l u s t r a t e s why an-in-camerainspec t ion . was necessary o f a l l the records , because th eco u r t i s without an means to determine the na tu re o fdocuments and if exemptions apply in f u l l o r p a r t .3. The T r i a l Court Denied Parmelee Due ProcesS ByDenyin9 Him A ll Discovery And Time To Oppose BothIn junc t ion Motions .

Rela ted to both in jun t ion motions brought by theJ a i l , CP-43-89, CP-1066-1072, Parmelee sought add i t iona lt ime to m a r s h ~ l f ac t s with s u f f i c i e n t t ime to probe th emany f ac tua l cla ims by th e agency. through discovery . It


30/65

CP-1117-1129, CP-1466-1468, CP-1156.Parmelee argued t h a t th e t r i a l c o u r t lacked any

j u r i s d i c t i on to hear th e J a i l ' s motion to suppress a l ldiscovery because they had fa i led to a t t empt o r evencla im they had met and confinred with Parmelee as requi redby CR-26(i ) . Absent such CR-26(i) compliance, theden ia l of discovery should be reversed on t h i s ground aswe l l . Clarke v . s t a t e Attorney Genera l ' s Off ice , 133 Wn.App.767,138 P.3d 144 (2006) .

Parmelee was denied due process when he was denieda l l discovery oppor tun i t i e s within th e scope o f CR-26(b) .To ensure any process under the c our t ' s ru l e s , cod i f i eda t RCW 2.28 .150, Abad v. Coza, 128 Wn.2d 575,588,911 P.2d376 (1996), provides a l i t i g a n t the process due underdue process , requi res a f l ex ib le approach to assure iti s meaningful and adequate fo r the i s sues presen ted .


31/65

s e l e c t i ve l y allow one par ty th e f u l l panopoly o fc o u r t ru les app l i ca t ion , by deny Parmelee th e samet rea tment , as was done here . Atchison , Topeka & SantaFe Ry v. Hercules Inc , 146 Wn.3d 1071,1074 (9th C i r .1998)

This case presented nothing bu t disputed f ac t s aboutwhat th e reques ted records cons i s t ed o f , what r e a l asopposed to imagined" r i s ks involved in producing them,and if and how th e fac t s al leged by th e J a i l were t ruein fu l l o r pa r t , even under CR-11(b) if made in goodf a i th . Dfuscovery under CR-26(b) would have revealedf ac t s such as under ER-406, ER-608, ER-613 and ER-806,opposing the many s a l a t i ous conclusory cla ims made bythe J a i l .

PRA cases f requent ly invo lve on ly a ques t ion ofif a s t a tu tory exemption -applies t o s pe c i f i c pub l i c


32/65

(1990) th e cour t n o t ~ d t h a t th e records reques to rconducted discovery . In Concerned Ratepayers Assoc 'nv . Publ ic u t i l i t y D i s t . , 138 Wn.2d 950,956,983 P.2d635 (1999) t he cour t notes a depos i t ion was t aken in thePRA case .

Because of the unusual ly high f a c t in tens ive casemade by th e J a i l ag a in s t Parmelee , he should have hadth e r i g h t to conduct discovery , and denying it was anabuse of d i sc re t i o n and denied Parmelee due p ro cess .4. When The T r i a l Court Said "This Case I s DISMISSED"It Terminated The J a i l ' s Claims With Pre jud ice .

On December 30, 2008, the t r i a l cour t ru l ed t h a t"This case i s DISMISSED." CP-1048, ff 8 (emphasis inor ig iona l ) . Parmelee had f i l e d objec t ions and a CR-59motion to r eco n s i d e r t he d i smissa l . CP-1037, ff 16.Parmelee ' s motion and objec t ions were never ru l ed upon,


33/65

asce r t a in i t s in ten t ion based on i t s unambiguouslanguage. "Callan v. Cal lan , 2 Wn.App.446, 468 P.2d 456(1970) . It i s not as if Parmelee d id not objec t to thedismissa l in th e proposed order submit ted by the J a i l ,and by doing do, brought to th e a t t e n t ion of the cour tth e e f f e c t o f the di smissa l . As a r e s u l t , re s j ud ica taand c o l l a t e r a l es toppel bars any in junc t ion , and eventhe J a i l ' s second motion s ix months l a t e r . CP-1066.

Remand i s requi red to determine PRA pena l t i e s andth e quant i ty of records not produced, with an orde rt ha t any exemptions and objec t ions a re bar red by thed i smissa l the J a i l proposed in t he i r order the cour tgranted . But a lso see , CP-1172, 7 ("This case is dismissed.")5. The s t a t u t o ry Exemptions Were Wrongly Applied AndPubl ic Records Determined Non-Disclosable WereIncor rec t ly Construed Exempt And Withheld.

The PRA spec i f i e s th ree t imes t h a t cour t s must


34/65

chapte r s h a l l govern.RCW 42.56.030 (emphasis added) (formerly RCW 42.17 .251) .Mr. Parmelee i s a p a r t of " the people" and theWashington Cons t i tu t ion , A r t i c l ~ I , 12, s t a t e s t h a t"Spec ia l Privi le .ges And Immunit ies Proh ib i t ed : No laws h a l l be ~ a s s e d grant ing any c i t i z en , c la ss of c i t i z ens ,or corpora t ion other t ha t municipal , pr iv i l eges orimmunit ies which upon the same terms s ha l l not equalybeLong to a l l c i t i zens , or corpora t ions ." (emphasis added); 'RCW 42.56.080.

Accountabi l i ty of government and t r ansparency canonly keep government hones t , if even to unpopular orc r i t i c a l records r eques to r s , f u l l access i s providedr egard l es o f [non-commercial] motive. Id . , Sheehan, 114Wn.App. @ 335-36. Caut ion must be exerc i sed by cour t st h a t might f r u s t r a t e the purpose of l i be ra l ly promoting


35/65

and r e - i s sued , s l i p Ope # 80081-2, 3 /25 /10 ) ( f ac to r s todetermine PRA pe na l t i e s ) .

However unpopular or con t rover s ia l a recordsreques tor might be such as Parmelee, Prison Legal News,Tim Eyeman, ACLU, Green Peace, Washington Coal i t ion fo rOpen Government or o the r types o f s imi l a r i nqui re r s ,these deserve the most j ud i c i a l prote .c t ion under the PRA.RCW 42.56.080; PRA Deskbook, Ch.4, pg . 6 , Commentary box.

( i ) The J a i l Fa i l s To Meet The Burdens OfRCW 42.56.540 To Jus t i fy Enjoinment And BeingRCW 7.40 , RCW 7.24 And CR-65 Are Only Genera lRules , They Don ' t Apply.

The J a i l ' s ac t ion with regards to RCW 7.40 , RCW 7.24and CR-65, should have f a i l e d ; b e ~ a u s e they are onlyegena l provis ions , and more spec i f i c provis ions under th ePRA such as RCW 42.56.540 and 550(1) apply . RCW 42.56 .030.PRA cases are no t case s in equ i ty per se , and the t r i a l


36/65

1155, a re a l so in dispute on appea l as they were in thetrial cour t . The f indings are conclusory , and l acks u f f i c i e n t r e a l fac ts to suppor t them in a non-concl-usory way, necessary to suppor t th e harsh r e s u l to f an in junc t ion . Soter ,162 Wn.2d @ 756-57. Anyc la ims by the J a i l must be appl ied within the, unambiguouste rms o f th e PRA. Ockerman v. King County Dept. o f Dev.& En v t ' l Svcs . , 102 Wn.App.212,216,6 P.3d 1214 (2000) .The c o u r t must give a s t a t u t o ry term its p la in meaningand assume t ha t the l e g i s l a tu r e in tended what it says ,reading the s t a tu t e as a whole, giving ~ f f e c t to a l l th elanguage in the s t a tu t e and harmonize a l l i t s prov i s ions .Id .. The cour t must not render o the r language , such asRCW 42.56.030 and .080 , supe r f l uous . PAWS-II, 125 Wn.2d@ 260.

Sta tu to ry cons t ruc t ion o f th e PRA favors d i sc losure


37/65

sought about. who in government, does what, to whom,and r e l a t e d metadata , t h a t enables c i t i z e ns and vic t imsto re l iab ly ident i fy publ ic o f f i c i a l s , d is t ingu ish onefrom another 'such as with s imi l a r names o r appearance,r a c ~ , gender , age and s imi la r ly p u b l i ca l l y di sc losedo r revealed informat ion, a re publ ic records , and sub jec tto PRA d isc losure . ~ . , CP-1038-1048.

The same p r in c ip a l s appl ied by t h i s cour t in Sheehanheld t ha t names and s imi la r informat ion i s d isc losab lerecords t h a t contain informat ion t h a t d isc loses names o fgovernment o f f i c i a l s , face (p i c t u re s ) , d a t e s -o f -b i r t h ,gender , race ,and age andl1similar informat ion should bed isc losab le . Id . , Koenig v . Ci ty o f DesMoines,158 Wn.2da t 183-184; Spokane Research & Defense Fund v. City ofSpokane, 99 Wn.App.452, 994 P.2d 267 (2000)( jobperformance records a re d i s c lo s ab l e ) ; Se a t t l e F i r e f i g h t e r s


38/65

n 9, i s net publ ic recerd i s cen t ra ry to . t h i s c eu r t ' she ld ing in m ' Ne i l l v. City e f Shere l ine , 145 Wn.App.913,187 P.3d 82 2 (2008) , r ev . granted , argued March 2010,WWW.TVW.ORG (Supreme Ceur t ' s e ra I argument abeut case ) .Metadata i s da ta abeu t data t h a t r e v ~ a l s hew, when , who.and what an e lec t ren ic r ece rd i s made, and even revealschange h i s t e r y , equipment cen f igu ra t i ens , and even ifth e sef tware used may be in v ie l a t i en e f manufac ture rs 'cepyr ight r i gh t s and r e l a t ed laws. Id . , PRA Deskbeek,Ch.3.2, RCW 42.56 .010(2) ; WAC 44-20-118.

The t r i a l ceur t incer rec t ly cempared and feundpubl ic pel icy urges nen-d i sc le su re , cen t r a ry to.RCW 42.56 .030. It he ld t h a t RCW 46.20.118 (d r i ve r s 'l i cense negat ives a re exempt frem di sc l e sure nermal ly ,because they inc lude p i c t u r e s e f p r i va t e , and ne t l imi tedto . gevernment empleyees) exempts di sc l e sure e f publ ic


39/65

in format ion to be in the hands of those in most need ofit.,

The Leg is la tu re cons idered , and r e j e c t e d , exemptingpubl ic employee photographs in 2010 before the 61s tsess ion . HB-2259, HB-1253, HB-1255 & HB-2337. Thiswas a ! fa i led a t tempt to modify RCW 42.$6 .250 .

The t r i a l cour t ' s holding t h a t th e PRA does not allowd isc losu re of ~ u b l i c records t h a t would enhance thea b i l i t y to i den t i fy government employees, CP-1043, fl 21,i s cont rary to th e PRAts i n t e n t . RCW 42.56.030. Thisreasoning was re j ec t ed in both Sheehan, supra , andKoenig v. City of DesMoines, 158 Wn.2d a t 183.

Likewise, phone numbers should a l so be d isc losab le .Parmelee sought them to eva lua t e if excess ive numberse x i s t e d , numbers provided t ha t were unused o r usedexcess ively o r fo r persona l bus iness purposes a t


40/65

t o cor rec t ly apply and i n t e r p r e t it in th e whole PRAcontex t . Redact ion was no t considered under RCW42.56.070(1) and.210 were nb t cons idered , Parmelee askedfo r in h is in-camera review motion. Th e J a i l f a i l ed toes tab l i sh t h e i r burden of proof under RCW 42 .56 .550(1 ) - (3 ) .Dawson v. Daly, 12 0 Wn.2d 782,798,848 P.2d 995 (1993);Spokane Pol ice Guild v . Liquor Control Bd. , 112 wn.2d. 30,36-38, 769 P.2d 283 (1989) . Ins tead , the t r i a l cour tgave the J a i l an improper narrowing approach.

For example, in Clawson v . Longview Publ 'g , 91 Wn.2d408, 415-16, 589 P.2d 1223 (1979) the cour t expla inedt ha t government employees, by the f ac t of accept ingpubl ic employment, give up cer ta in degrees of pr ivacyn o n ~ g o v e r n m e n t employed persons r e t a i n . Id , c i t i n g ,G e r t z . Rober t Welch, I n c ~ , 418 U.S.323,344-45 (1974) .The t r i a l cou r t ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i on and app l ica t ion of


41/65

information does no t meet the s t a tu to ry c r i t e r i a .The s t a t u t e requ i re s t ha t the information be a

compromisable p a r t of a t e r r o r i s t response program, t ha ti f revea led , IIconsists o f : spec i f i c vu lnurab i l i tyIassessments and records prepared fo r na t iona lsecur i ty b r ie f ings not normally d isc losab le , t a rge t ingt e r r o r i s t response t a c t i c s . 1I RCW 42.56.420 It doesnot apply to phone numbers Parmelee r eques t ed . NorthwestGas Assoc 'n v . Washington u t i l i t i e s , 141 Wn.App.98, 168P.3d 443 (2007. Being t h a t the same informat ion Parmeleesought i s r ead i ly d i sc losed to employees family, opposinglawyers and t he i r defense i nves t iga to rs , and on employeespersona l bus iness ca rds , email response name bl ocks ,l e t t e rhead and o the r J a i l forms, without more, th enon-di sc losure v io la ted the PRA and they should have beend i ~ l o s e d to Parmelee as reques ted .


42/65

on June 18,12009, the J a i l "p i l ed on" and f i l ed aone-page mot ion fo r a second in junc t ion . CP-1066. Th emotion does no t i den t i fy any evidence r e l i ed on, anyl ega l ba s i s , nor was a Note-for-Motion f i l e d , as requi redby King county Local Rule, KCLR-7(b)(5)(A) & (B) (a copyi s at tached here to as Attachment-A). Because anappeal was pending, and leave of t h i s cour t was requi redper RAP 7.2 , th e t r i a l cour t ' s subsequent ru l ings shouldbe s t r i cken and declared void as if they had neveroccur red , inc luding any ef fec t s of RCW 42.56 .565(4) .s t a t e v. J-R- Di s t r i bu t e r s , 111 Wn.2d 764, 769, 765 P.2d281 (1988) ; Tins ley v. Monson Sons C a t t l e , 2 Wn.App.675 191970)

The motion i t s e l f was i n s u f f i c i en t l y pled perKCLR-7(b)(5). It f a i l s to provide "a succ inc t s ta tementof th e fac t s " , "a conc ise s ta tement of the i ssue or.;law th e cour t i s asked t o ru l e upon," any evidence on


43/65

never f i l ed a CR-60 motion a f t e r the t r i a l cour t hadru led " [ t ] h i s cased i s DISMISSED," CP-1048, ~ 8 , whilef a i l ing to comply with CR-5(e) , CR-7 and KCLR-7(b)(5),which should be f a t a l to t h e i r motion in i t s e n t i r e t y .Doyle v. Planned Parenthood, 31 Wn.App.126, 639 P.2d240 (1982); CR-7(b)(1) ; Lean v . Demopolis, 62 Wn.App.173, 815 P.2d 269 (1991) . Thei r f a i lu re to s t a t e withany pa r t i cu la r i ty under CR-60(b) , f i l e a suppor t ingdec la ra t ion , and per CR-7(b)(1) the fac t s r e l i ed upon,should have been f a t a l to th e motion. Davis v . Bendix,82 Wn.App. 267, 91 7 P.2d 586 (1996) .

The one-page motidm;.;hardly supported the draconianr e s u l t of th e second 14-page in junct ion order . CP-1066,CP-1142-1155. A par ty cannot r e ly on records in anothercase without f i l i ng them with th e c le rk per CR-5(e)and KCLR-7(b) in t h i s case . Holland v. City of Tacoma,


44/65

dismissa l order , the co l l a t e ra l es toppe l and re sj ud i c a t t a e f f e c t barred t he i r subsequent c la ims .Sea t t l e -F i r s t N a t ' l Bank v. Marshal l , 16 Wn.App.503,557 P.2d 352 (1976).7. This Case Should Have Been Consolidated With TheOther King County Cases P er CR-19 And CR-42 To AvoidCol la t e ra l Estoppel , Res J ud ic a t t a And Standing

Defects Barr ing This And Other Act ions .Parmelee i n i t i a l l y objec ted to the J a i l ' s f a i l u re to

jo in indispensable pa r t i e s under CR-19. CP-20-21. Hemoved to conso l ida te , and the J a i l agreed. CP-22-25,CP-99-100. However, in th e J a i l ' s proposed orde rParmelee objec ted to , CP-1036, 15, they contradic tedthemselves , r e c ~ n g consol ida t ion be denied . CP-1062,

7. This crea ted a res jud ica t ta and c o l l a t e r a les toppe l bar to th i s and othe r ac t ion . It was a l soan abuse of d i sc re t ion to deny Parmelee ' s motion toconso l ida te . W.R.Grace & Co. v . St a t e Dept. of


45/65

i n the order , desp i t e never being pa r t i e s in thepe t i t i on nor added o r pa r t i e s in t he o the r ca se (s ) t hecour t denied consol ida t ion requi red by CR-12(g) ,CR-16(a) and CR-42 , t r igger ing equ i tab le es toppel andco l l a t e ra l es toppe l . Tr i p l e t t v . Dairy land Inc . , 12Wn.App. 912, 532 P.2d 1177 (1975) ; Rains v . s t a t e , 100Wn.2d 660, 674 P.2d 165 (1983).

The inc lus ion of a l l broadly included King Countyagencies in the order , such as a l so in King CountyS h e r i f f ' s Off ice v. Parmelee, # 08-2-22251-9 SEA, COA# 62938-7-1 and King County, e t a I , v . Parmelee,# 07-2-39332-3, Supreme c t . # 83669-8, compounding theCR-8, CR-10 andCR-42 de fec t s as w el l as th e c o l l a t e r a l

Les toppel f l aws to th e J a i l ' ~ case as wel l as under CR-17,CR-19 & CR-20. Northwest Indep. Fores t Mfrs. v . Dept .of Labor & Indus t . , 78 Wn.App. 707, 716, 899 P.2d 6


46/65

The J a i l ' s cla ims in the second i n junc t ion e f f o r t ,presumably based on RCW 42.56.565 *3 lacked s u f f i c i e n tproperly admissaple evidence based on on r e a l f a c t s ,and th e s t a t u t e i s over ly broad, vague and i suncons t i tu t iona l on due process , F i r s t Amendment andequal pro tec t ion grounds. C P - 1 0 6 6 - 1 0 7 2 ~ C P - 1 1 1 7 - 1 1 2 9 , CP-1466-1468, CP-1142-1155. Likewise , presumptivelydenying a l i t i ~ e n t t ime and any ab i l i t y to conductdiscovery within th e scope of CR-26(b) to probecontes ted i s sues complicated by th e volume o f f ac tu a lclaims made by the Agency, also presumptively den ies th erecords reques to r due process under th e s t a t e and f edera lc o n s t i t u t i o n s . Furthermore, RCW 42.56.565 cannot beapp l ied re t roac t ive ly as it was he re . Id .

( i ) The Second In junc t ion Lacked s u f f i c i e n tA d m i s ~ b l e Non-Conclusory Evidence NecessaryTo Suppor t I t s Draconian Resul t


47/65

1155. Assuming arguendo t h a t f ac t s found weresu f f i c i e n t l y ex i s t i n g i n the record , they a re n e i th e rre l evan t nor admiss ib le , CP-1123-1468, and any a f t e r - t h e -f a c t unt imely co n t en t i o n s , CP-1055-1361, CP-1073-1116,should have been disregarded by th e c o u r t . Id .

An example of the Jail's abusive use o f ani n junc t ion i s in convinc ing t h e co u r t t h a t Parmelee ' sreques t s fo r r eco rd s suppor t ing den ia l by th e jailguards did no t "sp i t in Parmelee ' s meals , CP-1148:8-9,fl 9; CP-1154:12-14, fl 3, or reques t s fo r J a i l po l ices ,n o t even made in a PRA r eq u es t b u t c la ims to t h e co u r tas one, CP-1148:11-13, fl 9, CP-1154:14-15, fl 3 , amountto harassment and t h r e a t s of J a i l s t a f f and t h e i rob jec t ives . Id .

The J a i l a l so f a i l s to suppor t any r e a l f ac t s t h a ta l l o r any jail [King County] s t a f f " f e e l p reso n a l l y


48/65

RCW 4 2 . 5 6 . 5 5 0 ( 1 ) - ( 3 ) ~ Zink v . City o f Mesa, 140 Wn.App.a t 337-338, 343-344; Sheehan, supra .

Other examples o f th e J a i l ' s abus ive in junct ione x i s t s repea t id ly such as c la iming t h a t Parmelee wasgoing to "maligning o r s lander ing" anyone, CP-1145,

8(b) & (d) without meeting any s tandard requi red byNew York Times v. Sul l ivan , 376 u .S . 254, 283 (1964).Even if t r u e , it;s not t h ~ b as i s fo r a PRA i n junc t ionbecause t o r t remedies a t law e x i s t . S tee l v. Queen CityBroadcast ing, 54 Wn.2d 402, 341 P.2d 499 (1959). Nori s exercis ing of F i r s t Amendment r i gh t s r i gh t s such asi n t e rne t pub l ica t ion , Sheehan, supra , Sheehan v. Gregoire ,274 F.Supp.2d 1135 ( W . D ~ 2009) , or p i cke t ing , Gooding v .Wilson, 405 u .S . 518, 520-21 (1974) , o r obta in ing cour t -room videos to obta in images of publ i c employees, Wash.Const . , Art i c l e I , 12; Nixon v . Warner Communications


49/65

in t imida t ing , an a l t e r na t e remedy a t law e x i s t s to dea lwi th it, and a PRA in junct ion has no e f f ec t one way oranother deter r ing such a c t i v i t i e s making the PRA .in junc t ion the wrong choice of law. ~ . , Stee l v.Queen City B r o a d c a s t i n ~ , supra ; Tegland, Vol .15 ,Washington Prac t i ce : C iv i l Procedure , 44.10 (2009) ,Tyler v . VanAlst , 9 Wn.App. 441, 512 P.2d 760 (1973) .

Alleging Parmelee "submit ted cont inuous s t reamsof [PRA] reques ts to pub l i c agenc ies , " CP-1146, f[ 8( i } ,i s ne i the r accurac te nor candid ly r ep resen ta t ive ,CP-1451, f[ 15( i} , he may neve r submit payment fo r ,CP-1146, f[ 8(i} & ( j ) , i s barred from cons ide ra t ioneven if t rue , which it i s a l so not , per RCW 42.56 .120.Espec ia l l y s ince Parmelee of fe red to withdraw a l l h isPRA reques t s to avoid l i t i g a t i o n th e agency forcedupon Parmelee to cont inue r e g a r d l e s s . CP-1173-1182.WAC 44-14-07001(1}. Simi la r ly , the term apply ing an


50/65

Like prev ious exagera t ions by th e J a i l , f indingt h a t , unl ike any othe r un iden t i f i ab le records reques torin comparison c la ims Parmelee " inundates agencieswith [PRA] reques t s hoping [ to] b e n i f i t f i n a n c i a l l y , "CP-1146, 8 (k ) , i s con t ra ry to th e record in t h i s o rany othe r case , CP-1451-1452, 8(k) ; CP-1173-1179.Zink v . City o f Mesa, 140 Wn.App a t 343-44.

The remaning por t ions of the qrde r , CP-1142-1155,are in e r ro r and the c o u r t fa i l ed to proper ly cons iderand weigh Parmelee ' s evidence ( ~ , CP-1183-1205,CP-1030-1037, CP-1206-1443, CP-1466-1468, CP-1444-1456,CP-1123-1129) and the c o u r t fa i l ed to expla in whyParmelee ' s evidence was disregarded c o m p ~ r e d to th eJ a i l ' s e a s i l y shown ~ l s e cla ims about Parmelee. Ther e s u l t i s cont ra ry to th e i n t e n t of the PRA, RCW 42.56.030and .550 , urg ing government t ransparency . Under ER-401


51/65

t h i s cour t .

Claiming Parmelee ' s PRA r eques t s : "weEe made to[unlawful ly , di s t ingu i shab le from l a w f u l ~ y ] harass andi n t im id a t e , " CP-11S2, f( 10, f( 12; PRA " p o l i c i e s " a renot meant to be served by any o f h is PRA reques t s ,CP-11S2, f( 11; enjoinment i s needed " to p ro t e c to f f i c i a l s from t h r e a t s to t h e i r sa fe ty" as if a PRAin junc t ion would have any e f f e c t one way o r ano ther ,CP-11S2, f( 13; to preven t use o f records reques ted byParmelee in [un iden t i f i ab le ] "cr iminal a c t i v i ty , "CP-l1S3, f( 14; "misuse o f the PRA fo r f i n an c i a l gain"when Parmelee of fe red to s e t t l e the case fo r nothingthe J a i l re fused, CP-1173-1182; t o p r o t ec t th e l audab lepurposes o f th e PRA" without any di scuss ion o f ana lys i swhat it cons i s t s o f , CP-11S3, f( 16. These many cla imsare improper specu la t ion , hearsay , and l acks anypersona l knowledge under ER-602, whi le Parmelee disputed


52/65

Even th e D e p t ~ of Correc t ions al lows PRA reques t s .WAC 137-08, e t seq; Burt v . D.O.C. , Wn.2d __ ___P.3d ,# 80998-4, 2010 WL 1909570 (Wash.Sup.Ct. May 13, 2010) .Claiming th e PRA reques ts promote crime i s l i kec la iming vic t ims o f government abuse a re to blame fo ral lowing it to occur .

Furthermore , records ava i lab le to some, must bepresumed it belongs to a l l and i s o f s i g n i f i c a n t publ icin te res t .NARA v . Fav ish , 541 U.S. 157, 172-73 (2004);Los Angeles Pol ice Dept . v. Fin ley , 528 U.S. 32, 45-45(1999) . An i n junc t ion even in p a r t because o fParmelee ' s [unpopular] views are cont ra ry to those o fth e government and should never be a bas i s to se l e c t i v e l ydeny records reques to rs records . I d . ; Koenig v . City o fDes Moines, 158 Wn.2d a t 183, 185-187.

( i i ) The New PRA Sta tu te RCW 42.56.565 Cannot BeApplied Ret roac t ive ly Because It St r i p s


53/65

RCW 42.56 .565(4) . CP-1125.The new s t a t u t e a f f e c t s p r i o r subs t an t ive o r ves ted

r i gh t s o f PRA records r eques to r s . It i nva l ida t e s aslew of PRA prov i s ions such as RCW 4 2 . 5 ~ . 0 3 0 , .050 , .070 ,.080, .100, .120, .210 , .520 , .540 and .550, even i f thei n junc t ion i s l a t e r determined b y a higher c o u r t as havingpermi t ted the agency to harass th e records r eques to r byrewarding them from PRA p e n a l t i e s a t RCW 42.56 .565(4) .In o ther words, th e agency pr o f i t s from harassment

. or i en t ed PRA in junc t ions to de te r PRA reques t . compliance.expecta t ions by records r eques to r s o f any k ind . It doesso th rough al lowing den ia l of pub l i c records to "b lack-l i s t ed" o r unpopular r eco rds r eques to r s , "no t l imi tedto" t he exerc i se o f p ro t ec t ed F i r s t Amendment r i g h t s .RCW 42.56 .565(2) . The new s t a tu t e s ign i f i c a l t l y impairsof a par ty previous ly possessed and c rea tes o r i nc reases


54/65

12 3 Wn.2d 15, 30, 864 P.2d 921 (1993) where a new s t a tu t ecrea ted add i t iona l burdens on prev ious and completedp r io r t r an s ac t i o n s . They were fo rb idden in t h a t caseand s imi la r ly should ' be forb idden he re .

( i i i ) RCW 42.56.565' s Subject ive Standard Of ProofBy Allowing Speculat ion And Blind Accusat ignsConsti tute Proof By A Preponderance OfEvidence Standard Denies Due Process .

While RCW 42.56.565 s t a t e s th e "preponderance ofevidence" i s the s t andard , r e a l i s t i c a l l y it i s not . Byi t s own language , th e s t a t u t e permi ts specua l t ion ,hearsay , con jec tu re and b l ind accusa t ions t o cons t i tu t ea prima fac i e case wi thout even a r i g h t o r expec ta t ionto conduct discovery needed to probe th e verac i ty of theaccusa t ions by the ageney aga ins t th e records reques to r ,crea t ing any "anyth ing o r nothing" ev iden t i a ry s tandardbase l ine . CP-1002-1028, CP-1067-1072, CP-1117-1120,CP-1123-1129, CP-1142-1156. It con t rad ic t s the very


55/65

qua l i f i ed under any s c i e n t i f i c , a c t u a r i a l o r l ega l lyde f inab le c r i t e r i a . It throw:s wide open th e door fo runpopuplar records reques to rs to be r e l e n t l e s s ly andexpens ive ly harassed by agencies with a vendet ta andend less deep pockets to oppress b l a c k - l i s t e d unpopularrecords reques to rs th e s t a t u t e economica l ly penal i zesfo r wrongful ly en tered i n junc t ions reversed on appeal .It i s con t ra ry to publ ic pol i cy , c iv i l i z e d jud ic i a ls tandards and due process .

( iv ) Equal Pro tec t ion I s Viola ted By RCW 42.56.565Because It Permi ts Selec t ive Prosecu t ion AndDiscr iminato ry Ef f ec t s Among Simi la r ly S i tu a t edRequestors Of A ll Types.

RCW 42.56.565 permits an agency to a r b i t r a r i l y s e l e c tan unpopular records reques to r and deny him o r herpubl ic records . All the agency has to do i s accuse th eperson or o rgan iza t ion o f employing, being a f r i end o rr e l a t e d t o , o r even a s tockho lder o f a pr i sone r inc luding


56/65

y e t on the agency 's "b . lc \ck_l is t ."The s t a tu t e v i o l a t e s Parmelee ' s and o ther s l i ke

h i s , as wel l as non-p r i sone r s ' o r orga n i z a t i ons ' , r i gh t sunder th e equal pro tec t ion c lause of the Washingtons t a t e Cons t i t u t i on , A r t i c l e I , 12 and the Uni teds t a t e s Cons t i t u t i on , Amendment Four teen . Johnson v .C a l i f . D.D.C., 543 U.S. 499 (2005) ; DeYoung v . ProvidenceMedical Center , 136 Wn.2d 136, 960 P.2d 919 (1998) ;See ley v . Sta te L 132 Wn.2d 776, 791-92, 940 P.2d 604(1997) . CP-1125-1126, CP-1455, 18.

(v) RCW 42.56.565 I s Fa c i a l l y And-As-AppliedUncons t i tu t iona l On Overbreadth , VaguenessAnd F i r s t Amendment Grounds.This cour t i s a l so asked to dec la re RCW 42.56.565

both fac i a l ly and as -app l i ed uncons t i t u t i ona l on F i r s tAmendment, overb read th and vagueness grounds . CP-1126-1129, CP-1145, 9( f ) - (g ) & 10(g ) .

The trial cour t permi t ted the agency to r e l y on


57/65

While RCW 42.56.550(3) permi ts a records reques tor to cause "inconvenience o r embarassment to pub l i cof f i c i a l s o r other" a long with RCW 42.56 .030, .050 , 070,.080, .100 , .120, .210, .520 and .550 c r e a t e s anincons is te .n t and se l ec t ive ly a r b i t r a r y s tandard fo rse lec ted "b lack - l i s t ed" unpopular records r eques to r sth e agency d o e sn ' t l i ke . It does no t exclude " t ruethrea t s" or o the r prosc r ibeab le forms of speech o rconduct with in th e F i r s t Amendment contenxt . e . g . see ,s t a t e v . Kilburn , 151 Wn.2d 36, 84 P.3d 1215 (2004);Brandenburg v . Ohio, 395 u . s . 444, 447 (1969). Thes t a tu te f a i l s to draw any d i s t i nc t i on without impermiss ib lyin t ruding on freedoms guaranteed by th e F i r s t Amendmentand th e Fourteenth Amendment of the Cons t i tu t ion .

The new PRA s t a tu te , RCW 42.56.565 l a cks anyob jec t ive , as opposed to sub jec t ive , c r i t e r i a , such as


58/65

to avoid th e r i sks of an in junc t ion . I d . , Bar tn ick i v .Vopper, 535 U.S. 514, 527 (2001) .

The s t a t u t e f u r th e r c h i l l s and d e t e r s pub l ica t ion ,seeking o f and i nqu i r ing i n to government misconductsuch as who, what, how and when government does , serv ingno requi red s t a t e i n t e r e s t of the highes t o rde r . Sheehan v .Grego i re , 272 F.Supp.2d a t 1143-1145, c i t i ng , Flor idaS ta r v . B . J . F . , 491 U.S. 524, 533 (1989) . Because th ei n t e n t of th e PRA o f th e PRA i s to make governmentRecords av a i l ab l e , con ta in ing t r u t h f u l in fo rmat ion ; itmay n ot be denied absen t a need to f u r th e r a s t a t ei n t e r e s t o f the highes t o rde r . I d . , Bar tn ick i , 532 U.S.a t 527; a l so see , Los Angeles Pol ice Dept . v . UnitedReport ing , 528 U.s . a t 43-45.

The s t a tu t e fu r ther ac t s as a con ten t -based r e s t r i c t i o non f r ee speech. It permi t s types of records sought , no t


59/65

p r e f e ~ e r c e s o r unl imi ted othe r c r i t e r i a , i s a con ten t

based r e s t r i c t i on of f r ee speech.The s t a tu t e i s not con ten t -neu t ra l because it i s

not j u s t i f i ed without re fe rance to protec ted f r ee speech.Id . It l imi t s revea l ing t r u th fu l informat ion, l e a rn ingt r u t h fu l in fo rmat ion and par t i c ipa t ing in idea exchangesinvolving government and its people without being l imi t edto r e s t r i c t i ng only " t rue th rea t s " it i s not a con ten t neu t ra l p roh ib i t ion . Id .

The s t a t u t e does not serve any compell ing s t a t ei n t e r e s t because th e s t a t e cannot claim any i n t e r e s tserved by focusing on th e i n t e n t of the speaker . Sheehan;v . Gregoire , 272 F.Supp.2d a t 1146-1147. This ana lys i soverlaps t h a t above, c i t i ng F l o r i d a ~ , involving arequirement fo r a s t a t e i n t e r e s t of th e highes t order .No compel l ing s t a t e i n t e r e s t can e x i s t when allowed to


60/65

r e a l and subs t an t i a l . Sheehan v. Gregoire , 27 2 F.Supp.2da t 1147-1148, c i t ing ,Erzonoznik v . City of Jacksonv i l l e ,422 U.S. 205, 218 (1975); Broadrick v . Oklahoma, 413 U.S.601, 613 (1973) . The cou r t may not rescue a s t a t u t efrom a fac ia l cha l l enge by rewri t ing th e s t a t u t e withmiss ing terms o r words. I d . , Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844,884-85 (1997) .

The s t a t u t e i s a l so void fo r vagueness because anord inary person of common sense cannot su f f i c i en t lyunders tand and comply without r i s ~ s and s ac r i f i c e s topubl ic i n t e re s t s and th e F i r s t Amendment. Sheehan v .Gregoire , 272 F.Supp.2d a t 1148-49.9. Parmelee Should Be Awarded PRA Pena l t i es ,Fees AndCosts Rela ted To The Records And This Appeal .

I f having preva i led on anyth ing in t h i s appea l ,Parmelee reques ts a l l f ees , cos t s , expenses and PRApena l t i e s per RCW 42.56 .550(4) Sote r , 162 Wn.2d @ 757.


61/65

1/

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI , hereby cer t i fy that in accordance with RAP 18.5

and DOC pract ice and po l i cy , a copy o f this pleadingswas served on the court and a l l required part ies VIAU.S. Mail , on or before the date below.

Signed a t Aberdeen WA on 7 1'7-/10. l lan Pa e lee


62/65

" "" "

. . . . '" "" " "

""

. . . .

. ": . .

. .... ,. . ..... '. . . ' .

" .. . . ." "Att" b""" t"" A".. ............ aOI"men { .... . . ..

", . .. . ' , '


63/65

:t:'s.t-..

j....,1

I Page I ofSKingCo.unty

I

LCR 7, CIVIL MOTIONS ., '(b) Motions an'd Other Docunfents.. ' .i . (1). S ~ p e of R u l e s . E ~ c e p t when specifically proYlded 111;another rule, this rule govems all motions. In civil cases. See, for example,ILCR26, LCR 40, LCR 56, and the. LFLR's. . .i (2) Hel,lrlng Times and Places. Hearing times and places willlalso be available from the Clerk's OfficelO'epartmerit of Judicial':Administration (E609Klng County Courthouse, Seattle, WI'. 9810-4 or 401iFourth Avenue North, Room 2C, Maleng ReglonatJustrceCehter, Kenr,WA198032; or for Juvenile Court at 1211 East. Alder, Room 307, Seattle, WI'.98122) by telephone at (206} 296-930q orby acce!ll!!rtll ,, ' . . . . . . . . . .~ t t p : / l w w w . k l n g c o u n t y . g o v / k c s c . . ; S c h e d u l e s f O r . a l l r e g u l a t calendars (faml!Y .law motiOns, ex parte, chief civil, etc.) will pe avallable':a,t t ~ ~ liifdi'matlon'de'sk,in the King County C ourthouse and the Court Adnilhlstratlon Offii:e In. Room.20 of the Reglonal'Justii:e Center. '. : . . . . .i ... , ' . . 3)Argumeilt. A i r l ) o n d l l i p o s l t l v e m Q t l o n . s a n ( f m o ~ Q t 1 ! 1 fo(orders.I t qefault and default judgmeritshall be ruled. On without orarsrglfnil:ll'lt, .. bxcept for the following': ' . ~ . . . . . . .

. ! . . . '(Af,otio,ns for revision of C O n i i n l ~ s I 9 f i ! t r l l ~ : r u l i n g ' S : " . . .(8) Motions for tempoJary resttalnlng oitlers: lihd .preliminarY injunciions; . .' . .i (e) Family Law r\1otlonsunder L F ~ ~ 5:', ..(I) Motions pefore EX Parte Commissioners; , .. (1;) Motions fOr which tne Coutt.lillowsorala.i'gument.i . (4)Oate$01 F . l l l n g ; H e ~ r i ~ O ~ O i i c o ~ , s l ~ ~ r a t i C i ' I ! ! : ..... , . ':. . . . A).FII.1I1Iflmd $che.Clul!n!J o f M p t . r p ' n ~ T J 1 e ! T i O v l n \ ' l ' p ' a r t y shall'serve and file allmotion documents'no later than' slj(tourt days before.iha dale the parl)iwisnes the m6iion to 6e c o n s l d ~ t e d . A m q i l o r ' H 1 i u l l t l l e . .~ c h e d u l e d by,a party f o r h ~ a r l i : l Q on 'a JudicIal d a Y ; F o ' r " ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ 4 $ r ~ 6 ~ d ' fe)' it .. ~ u d g e , If the mQtionls seUor oral .argument o n : ~ ~ q n - J ~ d . l ~ I ~ r : d a y , : t h ~ m Q y l n g party must r e ~ c h e d ~ l e l t with the Jud'1e's s t a f t ; f o r m O t I ! J . l l s w l t ~ ( ) ! J t ; ~ r a l .. . , .!lrgument, the' asslgnedJudge NII.I consider ~ h E r motrql'l on t / l $ . . ~ l i I X I j ( , i d l c ; l a l . : . ~ a y . . . . . . ' : .' .. .. ". : :i. . ' S) Schedullr1g0rialArgument on D I a ~ O ' l t l V . 'Motions. The. time and 'date fothearlng shal/be sclieduied i h ' a d v ~ ; , c e o y 40ntacting the staff onhe h ~ a r i l 1 g Judge.. . '. ' :.:! . .. . (e) OrillArgliment Riquest.ifori AU OthilMQtlon:';Any party may requestors! argument byplaclnir"ORAL ARGUMENT .' .~ E Q U E S T E D on the upper right hand corner of the first pageofthe'motlon'or oppos i t i on . ' . .: '. ( D L Q . P ~ ~ l ! i g " Q I l ~ i i m i m t s . A n y party opposing a motion

~ h a l l file and serve the original responsive .papers In opposition to a motion,Ilerve copies on parties and deliver copies to the hearing judge via thej ~ d g e s ' mallroom in the 6 o ~ r t h o u s e 1.0 w.h.lc;/:l the j U . ~ ! ; l e l ! l , l . q ~ t e d , no latert ~ a n 12:00 n o o n ~ o ' c o u t t " d a y $ ' b e f t ! i J I ' i S ' d 8 t e ' ! h 8 : i ' r i 6 t 1 a n : r s to be

"':

http://www,kjngcounty.:gov/cowts/ClerkIRules!IndividualtinksILCR_7.aspx?print=l 712212009

Page20fS

~ o n s , d " ". . (E) Reply. Any documents In strict raplY shall be flied andserved no later than '12;PO noon on.the court day befOre the heartng."(F) WorkIng Cople Working copies oflhe motion andall documents ill supp.ort or opposHlon shall be delivered to the hearing Judgeno later than on the day they are to be served on all parties. The Y { o ~ l n g copies shall be marked on the upper right comer of the first page WItH thedate of consideration or hearing and the name of the hearing Judge and shallbe deliv8red to the judges' mallroom In the courthouse In which the judge Islocated. . . .. " ..c; . . (G) Term A n y m a t e ~ { J I ..~ ~ < ! ~ t a tll118' !!"ter than .......;,.... r e q ~ l r e d by this rule, .and any reply m a t e r l a I . W f 1 I Q h ; I ~ . n o t ' l n ' l i t ~ ~ 'reply, W t l ~ not ' , . ~

.' be COnllldltred by the.oo.lttt. ( ) , ~ r o b ) e O t l O r j . j ) f c Q . Q t n i ~ ! : ~ . c e p ~ . 4 p 6 n ~ h e / ) mpQSltlon of app'ropFl$le4e,rms',.unlds.the cQurt'oroersotherwlse. /, /. (HJ Conf1rmailon. and Cancellation. Confirmation Is notnecessary, but If he motion Is stricken, the parties shall ImmedIately notifythe opposing P@r;!I!is an4l1o!!fy, ( ! : l ~ : ~ t i l f f o f , t h ~ . h e ~ d t i . g J ~ ~ g e . .' .... . .' .. . ( 5 ) ; l F o r m . , ~ ' ~ ~ ~ I i t ~ . i i ; t ; I t i I . , p o ( l . l v i r t l ' ~ ~ l r i i l . : . . j.. . . " ( ~ h " o t t . f O ~ O U o n . : A N ~ b t ' . f ~ r ' M E ! ~ i ! J I l " h a I L ' b c I l : m H ~ t l ! ' .'. ~ ~ ~ ' l l l ~ N o t , s ~ ~ I ~ L e I ) r : i t . I i l " ; m o . v l , , g p . a : r 1 Y . , ~ & . . t i t " 9 l ~ ~ . " . ~ qO,.'..t l . ~ r i r ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j e l ( ~ A ~ t . ~ l i ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ t m i J : ~ r : w k ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! : r z .N o t e . , f o " ' . M o l l o o f o r m ' ~ ; ~ l I 8 1 l e . b l e " f r o m , ! J : j e . ; e J e r t < ~ s , . C 1 f f l c 8 . : " ' .''. ~ ; g : n , ~ ! ~ , : : 1 ~ S ! ~ ~ i : ! ~ ' ! ! ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ' r : r : t r ~ l : e ., . 'fUi,.t",ff''R'ttU'lrt@ffThe specmc r e l l e f ~ e court Isreq.uested to grant or den;." ,. !, ., ... r' ..... ' . . . ' .. l ! 1 1 ! ! l ~ t ' I r i . i ' 1 t ' i ) H l ~ .. A succinct statement of thefacts contended to be m a t e r l a ~ . .' : ' . . .: . . . ( J I f P , ~ _ i r i . ' . f i t ~ ~ o ~ ; i . ; ; ~ l . X > n c l s e statement.of. .the Issue or Issues of lawuppn ~ h l c h . ~ . e COLlf;t.1S req..uested. to r:ule. . ' .the motion or O P p o s l t l o n l ~ r v J ~ 2 ~ t f ~ ~ ~ r ! ' : ! ~ 9 ~ W P ~ ~ ~ - : i ~ ~ ~ h whIch'D e p o s l t l ~ n t e s t { r : m i n y , d l i l C Q V ~ i y pl\l$i(ogs;.and docurrientarY evl(fem;e relied.upon must btl q u 9 f u d ' V ~ i b a t t m ~ r : a p ' h ( i t 6 c o t i Y o f t . , l e ~ n t P - a g ~ S m l ' ! ~ be .attached to'an ! i f f l d a v ' t l d e t ' i t l f . l ! ' l g t h & d ~ l ' I ' M I l ' l t l i . PartlEis itrould.hlghllght .those p ~ ~ upon wl'llchthej place sa.b$l8nf1alreliance.' CQples of cases shallnot.be attached toortglnal pf!Jadlngs. RespO!islve'pleadings shall confonn to.this fonilat. . . -. . . ( v ) ? ~ i i W . ~ } l f i t Any legal authority relied upOn mustbe cIted. Copies of all c l t E l d n o n ~ W a s h l n g t o h authorities upon which: partiesplace subitariilalmllance Shall be S1rQvtdB,cHd ~ h e hearing Judge and tocounsel ot parties, but Shall not be filed Wltl) the Cla;k. . . ' (vi} Pai!t. Limits. The Initial motion and opposing.. m e m o r a n d ~ m shall not exceed .'J2Ipages w l t h ~ u t authority of the court; reply .memoranda shall -not exceed five .pages without the authority of the court., (C) Form of Proposed Otders; MalJlng Envelope Themoving party and any party opposing the motion sl1all attach to theirdocuments a proposed order. The . ' .Original of each propos!ld order shall be delivered to the hearing judge but

http,:/fwww.kingcounty.gov/courts/ClerkIRuleslIndividuallinkslLCR_7.aspx?print-1 7n.212009

! ..'j!,


64/65

:p. ....--+- .:r

f')i

Page 3 ors .I hall not be filed with the Clerk. For motions without oral argument, the moving party shall alsQ provide the court with pre-addressed stampedI envelopes addressed to each party/counsel. . . ..i (D) Presentation by Mall. Counsel may present agreedIrders and ex parte orders based UpOI) the record In the file, addressed either to the court or to the Clerk. When signed, the judge/commissioner will file ..such order with the Clerk. When rejected, the judgeleomm!ssloner. may reiumthe papers to the counsel.-An addressed stamped'envelope shall be provided: or return of any conformed materials. and/or r e J e c ~ e d . o r d e r s . : ! . (6) Motloll. to Recoraslder. See LCR 5 9 ~ .: (7) Reopening Motlo/ lil. No party shall. remake the same motioni o a different judge without showing by affidavit .what motion was previously made, when and to which Judge, what the order.or dec/Sian was, and any new!facts or other circumstances tharwould Justify seeking a different ruling fromianother judge .. . . .... . .. ' . , .. .i . (8) Motions for ReviSion of a Commissioner'. Ord.er. For'allleases except juvenile and ml!ntal Illness prix:eedir:Jg.s:.' . ': '" .":' : .. .i . :. " (A) A motJon for- revision of a Ommlssloner.'s order shalljbe served and filed within 10days of ehtryofihe: wtittenorder,:as.provlded InIRCW2.24:()SO, ~ I o n g ' w i t h a ; w r l t t e h notice of hearing t ~ a t ~ l v e s ' t h ~ other. .. parties alleast slxdaYlI notICe of the time.date and plaCE! of he. hearing on ..!themotlon for r e V l s i ( m . ~ Ttie mqtipn$hailld/tinJifY:th!!lI'itorclaImed:.:i (B) A hearingona motion for revision . o f ~ , '. ..lcorilmissioner's ori:!Elr.lIhall be schedUled. wlih1n2f dllYii. ot.erijry :of the .~ o m m l s s l o n e r ' s order,uniesstftei!Sslgned Judge.or, for u r i a ~ s l l l n e d eases.,the Chief Civil Judge, orders. QtherWise... ' , . . .' . : . . . ';' . '. (i) For e a s e l l ' ~ s s l g n e d to al) I n d i v l d u ~ I ' J u d g e , the,time and date for the hearings/:lalt be scheduled In advance' with -:the staff .,"easslgned Judge. . ' . . ...._ .... ' . .... .I . . ' . . (1I):.Forcaseli not asslgJi.e4 to an lildlvldualOJudge; ,he hearing shall be, I!ChQdul!(!d . t 1 1 ~ Chief Civil OiWartm8(1t f9r ~ l ' l t l r e pase ..asslgAment area ~ s e s . Fc;ii-Kerit. c a S : e a . $ ~ i g ! , m e h t a r e ; r c a $ e . s i ' tliel1earlng' .~ h a l l be scheduled by iheMalerig R e g i ~ n ' a I J U ~ t l d e ..Cenfer Chle{Judge. For .ramily lawcases Involving ch./lqreri the h e a i ' l n g ~ h a l l b e sChedUled by IheChief Unified Family Court.Judgl!.. . .'. . '. ........ ':.,I .' .. ' (il llA ll motlQnsforrevll/lonof I!commlss!oher's .prder shall be based on t h ~ w t i t t ! J n materials ~ n a evidence 6ubmlttediotliecommissioner, Including documents a.nd pleadingjlln:the court Ole. The. .fnovlng party shall provide the.assig.ned Judge: Ii Work.11l9 copy of al/msterlals .&ubml.tted to 1he cornmlSsl9her In. support of and lri' oppo$ltlon to the motion,we!1 as Ii copy of the electronic recOrding, IUhe' iTlotlon Iiefore the . .Commissioner wils recorded.Oral.arguments on mojlons. to revise shall be .' .,mlled t.o 10 minutes side. . .... ' . . . .i . . ' (Iv) The conjmlssloner'swrltten order shall renialn Ineffect pending the hearing on revision unless ordered otherwise by the. assigned Judge, or, for unassigned cases, the Chief Judge., (v) The party seeking revision shall, at least 5 days~ e f o r e the hearing, deliver to the judges' mailroom, for.the eS!ilgned judge orChief Judge, the 'motion, notice of hearing and copies of all documentssubmitted by all parties to the commissioner. ., (vi) For eases In which a timely motion (or

h t L p : / l w w w . ~ i n g c o u n t y . g o Y / c o u r t s / C l e r l c l R u l e s / I n d i Y i d u a 1 l i n k s l L C R _ 7 , a s p x ? p r i n t - l . , . 712212009I

Page 40rsreconsideration of the comm issioner's order tias been filed, the time for filing'a motion for revision of the commissioner's order shall commence an the dateof the filing of the commissioner's. written order of Judgment onrecons ldere t lon . .

( ~ ) Motion for Order to Show Cau Motions for Order toShow Cause may be heard In thQ ex parte department: For cases where theretum 0" the order to show cause Is before the hearf.ng judge, the movingparty shall obtllll) a date for such hearing from the staff of the a s s l g n e ( l ' j u d ~ before appearing In the eic paite department.(10) Motion Shortening Time.(A) T h ~ time for notice a'nd heanng of amotion'may be .,. shortened only for good cause upon written application to the court Inconformance with this rule. .. . (B) A motion for ort;ler shortenlnQ lime may not'be.Incorporated Into any either pleading .. ' . (C) As soon as the moving party Is aware ttiat he or shewill b.e seeking an order IIh9'rterilng tll1'l8, that party must contilct the Opposing''partY to give notice 10 the form mO$t likely. to result lri ac;tual notlCe of he., pending motion to shQrten. time. ' T ~ " d e . e l ~ r a t l Q r i In ~ 1 X l p 6 r r ofttie m o ~ must Indicate whSt.efforts have bello.made to notify the ot/:1ef "Ide.. . i ' .. . (D) eccept foremergency SituatIons; the. ;olfrt,wllf:riot .role 011 B. ~ t i O h to ShQrtEjli lime !intlf he ClOSe althii Reitt-iiusrne$&'day .'fOlto.WihgfjllhgOfthe motion' (and se.rvlc;e of he rriOtlon on the appalling-party)

" ' t o p e ~ l t the, opposlo.Q.party fo:-ntea ~ s p q l ! ' S . : I f 1 h ' ri1Qv.tngpsifY_'r1iI ."thll.f e ~ l g e n t ; c l r c \ i ~ t a r i c e s make It ! m p 9 s S l ~ l , to:wrnplY: VIlli f b ! ~ .


65/65

f Ic;Ji

\.l>

conditions of he site 2009 King County

h l t p : l l w w w . ~ n g c o u n t y . g o v / c o u r t s / C l e r k I R U l e s / I n d i v i d u a l l i n k s I L C R _ 7 . a s p X ? p r i n t = 1

Page S ofS

1/2212009

parmalee v king county

Documents