1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
SEATTLE DIVISION
9
10
11
12
MICHAEL LEAL,
13
Plaintiff,
14
vs.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Defendants.
23
24
25
26
27
28
I, Kevin Snider, hereby declare, that I one of the attorneys for the named plaintiff, Michael Leal,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
in the above-encaptioned action, and that if called upon, I could, and would, truthfully testify of my
own personal knowledge as follows:
1.
I wrote the letter in the Verified Complaint which is marked as Exhibit C and was
On October 14, 2014, I received a telephone call from counsel for the Defendants,
Michael Patterson, informing me that he had read my letter but was out of town and is having
8
information from the school collected for him.
9
10
3.
On October 17, 2014, I received an e-mail from another attorney for the Defendants,
11
Sarah Heineman, who wrote as follows: Kevin I am working with Mike Patterson on this
12
matter. We have obtained some information from the District and I am going to the school on Monday
13
to conduct interviews (not of your client, of course). We anticipate providing you with a written
14
15
On October 27, 2014, I received a written response from Defendants through their
16
17
18
attorneys which appears in full, with enclosures, as Exhibit D in the Verified Complaint.
5.
I spoke by telephone, at some point, with Ms. Heineman about the situation involving
19
our respective clients. Though I do not remember the date of our conversation, it took place after
20
receipt of the above-described letter from the Defendants lawyers and before the filing of the Verified
21
Complaint.
22
6.
The day after the Verified Complaint was filed, I called and left messages for Mr.
23
Patterson and Ms. Heineman. Mr. Patterson was unavailable because he is in trial this week and Ms.
24
25
26
Yesterday I received a call from the firm representing the Defendants in which they
27
28
agreed to accept service of the Verified Complaint. That document, along with all exhibits and the civil
1
2
3
As per a prescheduled appointment, at around 1:00 p.m. my call was returned by Ms.
Heineman and I informed her that a request for a temporary restraining order would be filed unless the
parties could agree that the literature distribution rule (Everett Public Schools Board Procedure 3222P)
would not be enforced against my client. Later that day I followed up with an e-mail memorializing the
7
8
proposal as follows:
Dear Ms. Heineman,
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
A facial challenge to a school rule that (1) prohibits students from distributing
literature that has not been written by a student and (2) restricts distribution to before
and after school at the schoolhouse entrance/exits
Michael Leal has been suspended 3 times and is in imminent danger of further
suspension orexpulsion
16
17
18
19
20
21
Our office would stipulate not to file the TRO if school officials will agree not to
enforce BP 3222P as against my client until a motion can be heard on a preliminary
injunction. We would agree to file the PI within a week of the stipulation. As to the
timing of a hearing on a motion, local rules read: Motions...seeking a preliminary
injunction...shall be noted for consideration on a date no earlier than the fourth
Friday after filing and service of the motion. LRC 7. Hence, if our office filed a PI
motion next week, it would likely be heard on the Friday after Winter break.
22
Please relate this to your clients and let me know whether they are inclined to agree to a
stipulation as described above.
23
24
25
26
9.
Kevin,
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
I discussed your request below that the District not enforce Procedure 3222P as to
Michael Leal until the time of a preliminary injunction hearing on this matter. Because
the law does not allow the District to make exceptions to its policies for particular
students and not others, it is not able to accommodate this request. As you noted in our
discussion, due to the upcoming school holidays, there is a relatively short period of
time in which this would be an issue before a preliminary injunction hearing could be
held. For that reason, it appears that a Motion for Preliminary Injunction may be more
appropriate at this time than seeking a TRO. We understand that you may disagree with
us on that point, and we will file a response to any request for TRO.
In addition, it was brought to my attention that someone representing himself as
Michaels attorney came to Cascade High School today looking for him. Because this
individual is not Michaels parent or guardian or otherwise listed as a contact for
Michael, the school appropriately did not assist him in locating Michael. This is a
student safety issue and should you need additional explanation, please let me know.
9
10
11
12
13
Prior to filing the papers in support of the TRO and preliminary injunction, I served by
e-mail to opposing counsel, whose contact information is listed below, the documents listed below:
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Washington and California, that the foregoing is true and correct to my own personal knowledge.
1
2
3
Executed this 21st day of November, 2014, in the County of Sacramento, City of Sacramento, State of
California.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28