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 Arthur West, 120 State Ave NE #1497

08-5741 RJB 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plaintiff requests that they be withdrawn, so as to spare the Court further needless 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 Arthur West, 120 State Ave NE #1497

08-5741 RJB 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 Arthur West, 120 State Ave NE #1497

08-5741 RJB 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 Arthur West, 120 State Ave NE #1497

08-5741 RJB 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 Arthur West, 120 State Ave NE #1497

08-5741 RJB Olympia, Washington, 98501