Doe

                                               The Honorable Robert J. Bryan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON­TACOMA __________________________________________________________________ ) ARTHUR WEST  ) Appellant, ) No.  08­5741 RJB ) Vs. ) APPELLANT’S ) OBJECTION TO  STEPHEN JOHNSON, et al   ) MOTIONS TO Respondents ) STAY __________________________________________________________________ Comes now the plaintiff and makes the following preliminary response and  objection to defendant’s requests to stay initial disclosures and discovery:

1.Introduction

1 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE 08-5741 RJB

Arthur West, 120 State Ave NE #1497 Olympia, Washington, 98501

Defendants seek to stay discovery and, in the case of the federal defendants,  even the initial disclosures pending determination of their­as yet unfiled­motions to  dismiss. The   defendants’   requests   to   stay   discovery   and  disclosure   are   completely  improper, and seek to unfairly impose what is in effect a prior restraint upon the  disclosure   of   the   evidence   necessary   to   determine   their­as   yet   unspecified­ dispositive motions. These motions of defendants are based upon inferences drawn from the very  facts they seek to withhold, an improper characterization of the plaintiff’s claims in  regard to APA review, and are further clearly interposed for improper purposes, and  plaintiff requests that they be withdrawn, so as to spare the Court further needless  expenditure of time in resolving FRCP 11 motions.

2.Argument I   THE   DEFENDANT’S   MOTIONS   ARE   INCONSISTENT   WITH   THE  INTENT OF THE FEDRAL RULES

2 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE 08-5741 RJB

Arthur West, 120 State Ave NE #1497 Olympia, Washington, 98501

The legal provisions governing discovery in the federal courts, set forth in FRCP 26-37. The advent these discovery procedures has been described as “one of the most significant innovations in federal procedure”, The pretrial discovery rules are intended to advance fact finding and reduce the role of surprise at trial, without the costs and delays of judicial involvement1. As one author has noted, the authors of the Discovery Rules had “Utopian”  belief   in   the   beneficial   effects   of   the   discovery   process   “They   (the   draftsmen)  expected that the exchange of information between the litigants would bring the  court more facts, better reasoned arguments, and a fuller knowledge of the merits  of the suit2.” Defendants’   motions   to   stay   are   contrary   to   the   intent   of   the   federal  discovery rules, and will serve to frustrate the public policy in just and economical  disposition of cases on the merits that the rules were designed to ensure. 

II   THE   DEFENDANT’S   MOTIONS   ARE   INCONSISTENT   WITH   FRCP  56(f) Defendants’ motions for their various stays of disclosure of the very  evidence necessary to fairly evaluate their pending motions also contravenes  the clear language of FRCP 56(f), which provides as follows:

1Obtaining discovery abroad, American Bar Association, André Fiebig, 2005

2Pretrial Discovery and the Adversarial system, William A. Glasser,  234 (1968)

3 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE 08-5741 RJB

Arthur West, 120 State Ave NE #1497 Olympia, Washington, 98501

FRCP 56 (f) When Affidavits Are Unavailable. If a party opposing the motion shows by affidavit that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1) deny the motion; (2) order a continuance to enable affidavits to be obtained, depositions to be taken, or other discovery to be undertaken; or In   this   case,   the   very   evidence   that   defendants   seek   to   withhold   is   the  evidence that will be the most relevant to their motions. As such, plaintiff will be  placed in the position of filing numerous responses and motions merely to preserve  the basic due process right to reasonable disclosure of the evidence necessary to  present   his   case.   This   attempt   by   the   defendants   to   sidestep   their   discovery  obligations should be sternly denounced. III DEFENDANT’S CHARACTERIZATION OF THE NATURE OF THE CASE AND ISSUES TO BE DETERMINED IS MISLEADING Also problematic is the misleading nature of the defendants’ representations as to the issues and facts of the case. Contrary to the federal defendants’ representations, this case involves mixed issues of fact and law, not the least of which is whether all of the claims are capable of resolution under the APA or are required to be determined in some other court. While there is certainly a reasonable position that information might not be produced at this time as to NPDES delegations nationwide, that resolution of the federal Clean Water Act issues in this case requires at least the information regarding the Washington State permitting program. This is especially necessary due to ongoing violations and since the State is continuing 4 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE 08-5741 RJB

Arthur West, 120 State Ave NE #1497 Olympia, Washington, 98501

to act to withhold records from public disclosure in regard to a new permit application for a joint City-Port project. On file in this case is a true and correct copy of a June 4, 2009 article in the  Olympian Newspaper. This article makes prima facia case for continuing violations  of   the   Clean   Water   Act   by   defendant   port,   and   the   City   of   Olympia,   which  permitted the activity and which shares a commingled storm water collection and  discharge system with the port. Under the circumstance where there are apparently  uncontested   ongoing   violations   of   federal   law,   defendants’   requests   to   stay  disclosure of the facts related to these egregious circumstances is tantamount to an  obstruction of justice, and upon proper application, a substantial sanction may be in  order. (See Preferred Care Partners Holding Corp. v. Humana, Inc., 2009 WL 982460 (S.D. Fla. April 9, 2009)

3.Conclusion Defendants motions to stay discovery and disclosure should be denied, and  defendants admonished to comply with the intent of the discovery rules that cases  be   fairly   determined   upon   their   merits,   without   any   undue   impediment   to   the  disclosure of information necessary for a just ruling. I certify the foregoing to be correct and true.  Done June 6, 2009. .

    _____________ Arthur West

5 PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE 08-5741 RJB

Arthur West, 120 State Ave NE #1497 Olympia, Washington, 98501