John Doe #1 et al v. Reed et al

Filing 250

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H Settle for additional briefing on 208 SEALED MOTION for Summary Judgment; 204 SEALED MOTION for Summary Judgment; 196 SEALED MOTION for Summary Judgment Motion; 209 MOTION for Summary Judgment : RENOTED to 8/24/2011. (TG)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

5
6
7

JOHN DOE #1, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

CASE NO. C09-5456BHS

v.
SAM REED, in his official capacity as
Secretary of State of Washington; et al.,

11

ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL
BRIEFING

Defendants.

12
13

This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ cross motions for summary

14

judgment (Dkts. 196, 204, 208, 209). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in

15

support of and in opposition to the motions and the remainder of the file and hereby

16

requests additional briefing as discussed herein.

17
18
19
20

I. DISCUSSION
The parties have each submitted cross motions for summary judgment on
Plaintiffs’ as-applied challenge to the Washington Public Records Act (“PRA”), RCW
Chap. 42.56, as it pertains to Referendum 71 (“R-71”) petition sheets. See Dkts. 196, 204,

21

208, 209. Specifically, Plaintiffs seek to prevent the disclosure of the identities of those
22
23
24
25
26

who signed R-71. See, e.g., Dkt. 2 (Complaint).
To support their case, Plaintiffs provided the Court with a vast amount of
documentation to support their as-applied challenge to the PRA. Plaintiffs assert that this
documentation will establish a material question of fact as to whether disclosure of R-71

27
28
ORDER - 1

1

signers’ identities would result in the reasonable probability of threats, harassment, or

2

reprisals.

3

In Washington Families Standing Together’s (“WFST”) motion for summary

4

judgment, it argues that the record is devoid of “allegations that any person who merely

5

signed the R-71 petition – without taking a public stand – has been threatened or harassed

6
7
8

. . . . There are no allegations that . . . any citizens refused to sign the R-71 petition for
fear of harassment.” Dkt. 204 at 24-25. In opposition to these arguments, Plaintiffs cite to
their exhibits to provide examples of threats, harassment, or reprisals. See Dkt. 227 at 10

9

(citing Ex. 1-3, 4-84, 4-195). However, these examples are not actually responsive to
10
11
12
13

WFST’s claim that no evidence exists regarding threats or harassment toward R-71
signers who have never taken a public stand on the referendum. See id. (the exhibits
actually pertain to a public figure and a website that does not appear to be directed at any

14

R-71 signer in particular). In further responding to WFST’s argument on this point,

15

Plaintiffs continue to cite to non R-71 matters, which also do not respond to WFST’s

16

argument. See id. at 10-27 (citing various documents in the record that are not R-71

17

specific or are only remotely responsive to WFST’s argument on this issue).

18

A party may not prevail in opposing a motion for summary judgment by simply

19

overwhelming the district court with a miscellany of unorganized documentation. Zoslaw

20

v. MCA Distributing Corp., 693 F.2d 870, 883 (9th Cir. 1982). For purposes of motions

21

for summary judgment, reasonable doubts as to the existence of material facts are

22

resolved against the moving party and inferences are drawn in the light most favorable to

23

the opposing party. Addisu v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 198 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 2000).

24
25
26

However, where no factual showing is made in opposition to a motion for summary
judgment, the District Court is not required to search the record sua sponte for some
genuine issue of material fact. See Carmen v. San Francisco Unified School Dist., 237

27

F.3d 1026, 1029 (9th Cir. 2001). Additionally, it is not the task of this Court “to scour the
28
ORDER - 2

1

record in search of a genuine issue of triable fact. [The Court relies] on the nonmoving

2

party to identify with reasonable particularity the evidence that precludes summary

3

judgment.” Keenan v. Allan, 91 F.3d 1275, 1279 (9th Cir. 1996).

4

The Court requires a more relevant and specific response on this issue from

5

Plaintiffs. Further briefing on this issue will be helpful to the Court in resolving the

6

multiple cross motions for summary judgment. Plaintiffs shall therefore file additional

7

briefing on this issue, not to exceed five pages. The brief shall inform the Court of those

8

specific documents already in evidence that Plaintiffs believe will establish a material

9

question of fact as to whether disclosure of R-71 signers’ identities would result in the

10
11

reasonable probability of threats, harassment, or reprisals. These documents shall only
include the declarations, depositions, and documentary evidence already in the record of

12

actual R-71 signers who have not already made themselves public figures on this issue
13

(e.g., information regarding Prop 8 in California, op-ed publications, and the like will not
14
15

be considered relevant for purposes of this request).
II. ORDER

16
17

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file the additional briefing

18

requested herein on or before August 24, 2011. The cross motions for summary judgment

19

are renoted for consideration on the same date.

20

DATED this 15th day of August, 2011.

21
22

A

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER - 3