Manatron, Inc. v. Snohomish County et al

Filing 7

ORDER denying plaintiff's 2 Motion for TRO signed by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10
11

MANATRON, INC. dba THOMSON
REUTERS TAX & ACCOUNTING,
GOVERNMENT, a Michigan corporation,

12

Plaintiff,

13

Case No. C17-959RSM
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

v.

14
15
16
17
18

SNOHOMISH COUNTY, a governmental
subdivision of Washington State; COWLITZ
COUNTY, a governmental subdivision of
Washington State; and TYLER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
Defendants.

19
20

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining

21

Order (“TRO”), Dkt #2. Plaintiff moves the Court to issue a TRO “restraining Defendants

22
23
24

Snohomish County and Cowlitz County (collectively “Counties”), from disclosing and/or
making public [Plaintiff’s] Responses to Snohomish County Request for Proposal (“RFP”)

25

#21-16SB and Cowlitz County RFP #05-2016 (“Responses”), which the Counties intend to

26

disclose on June 22 and June 30, 2017 to Tyler Technologies, Inc. (“Tyler”) a key competitor.”

27

Id. at 2.

28

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER - 1

“Motions for temporary restraining orders without notice to and an opportunity to be

1
2

heard by the adverse party are disfavored and will rarely be granted.” LCR 65(b)(1). “The

3

Court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse

4

party or its attorney only if specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show

5
6
7

that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the
adverse party can be heard in opposition; and the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any

8

efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

9

65(b)(1) (emphasis added). Unless these requirements are satisfied, “the moving party must

10

serve all motion papers on the opposing party before or contemporaneously with the filing of

11
12
13

the motion and include a certificate of service with the motion.” LCR 65(b)(1) (emphasis
added).

14

The Court has examined Plaintiff’s Motion and finds that Plaintiff has not attached a

15

certificate of service nor requested issuance without notice. Instead, Plaintiff has attached a

16

“Declaration of Service” indicating that Plaintiff has emailed copies of this TRO to Defendants

17
18

and will properly serve them at a later date. Dkt. #4. Plaintiff fails to attach any waiver of

19

service. The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Declaration of Service fails to satisfy the notice

20

requirements of LCR 65(b)(1). By acknowledging that service will be accomplished at a later

21

date, Plaintiff seems to admit that it has not properly given notice to Defendants, yet fails to

22
23

provide the reasons why notice should not be required. The Court therefore concludes that

24

Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the above procedural requirements for a TRO and will deny this

25

Motion on that ground alone.

26
27

The record shows that Plaintiff has been in communication with Defendants Snohomish
County and Tyler Technologies, Inc. about the records at issue in this case. See Dkt. #3 at ¶7

28

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER - 2

1

(Declaration of Jane Pope). Plaintiff has negotiated to delay the release of those records from

2

June 8, 2017, to June 22, 2017. Id. However, Plaintiff has apparently waited until the last

3

possible moment, 3:21 PM on June 22, 2017, to request a TRO from the Court. See Receipt for

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Dkt. #2. If Snohomish County has not already released the records at issue, it would not have
been possible for the Court to review Plaintiff’s Motion and issue an Order by June 22, 2017.
Accordingly, that portion of Plaintiff’s TRO appears to be futile. The Court notes that Plaintiff
is free to refile this Motion after satisfying the above procedural requirements.
Having considered Plaintiff’s Motion and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby
finds and ORDERS:
(1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, Dkt. #2, is DENIED.
(2) Plaintiff is DIRECTED to serve a copy of this Order on Defendants.

14
15

DATED this 23rd day of June, 2017.

16
17
18

A

19

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER - 3