1 2 3 4 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON 5 FOR THE COUNTY OF GRANT 6 OREGONIAN PUBLISHING COMPANY LLC, an Oregon limited liability 7 corporation; and LES ZAITZ, STOEL RIVES LLP 760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000, Portland, OR 97205 Main (503) 224-3380 Fax (503) 220-2480 8 Plaintiffs, 9 v. 10 GRANT COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE; GLENN PALMER, in his official capacity; 11 and SALLY DeFORD, in her official capacity, 12 Defendants. 13 14 No. 15-0596CV PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (Oral Argument by Telecommunication Requested) I. UTCR 5.050 STATEMENT Pursuant to UTCR 5.050, Plaintiffs request oral argument on this Motion and estimate 15 16 that 30 minutes will be required. Plaintiffs request official court reporting services. Plaintiffs request a hearing by telecommunication. The names and telephone 17 18 numbers of the parties served with this request are: Zachary Hostetter and Benjamin Boyd, 19 Hostetter Law Group LLP, (541) 426-4584. 20 II. MOTION Pursuant to ORCP 79, Plaintiffs move for a temporary restraining order (1) enjoining 21 22 Defendants from deleting, destroying, altering, or taking any other action that would alter, 23 delete, or destroy any email sent from, received by, or deleted (temporarily or permanently) 24 from the email address gepalmer400@centurytel.net, including, but not limited to, deleting 25 the electronic version of any email sent from or received by that email address; and (2) 26 ordering Defendants to take all steps necessary to preserve in electronic format all emails Page 1 - PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 87096741.2 0057220-00160 1 sent from, received by, or deleted (temporarily or permanently) from the email address 2 gepalmer400@centurytel.net. This Motion is supported by the following Memorandum of Law, the Declaration of 3 4 Brad S. Daniels in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“Daniels 5 Dec.”), and the pleadings and documents on file herein. STOEL RIVES LLP 760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000, Portland, OR 97205 Main (503) 224-3380 Fax (503) 220-2480 6 III. MEMORANDUM OF LAW 7 A. Introduction 8 Plaintiffs bring this Motion to prevent Defendants from continuing to systematically 9 destroy public records in a manner contrary to Oregon law and to take all steps necessary to 10 retain those records. Since February 16, 2016, Plaintiffs have been trying to obtain responses 11 to public records requests specifically seeking emails that Defendant Glenn Palmer sends or 12 receives in his official capacity since November 1, 2015. Not only have Defendants failed to 13 produce a single email, they have stated that they do not even “possess” a single responsive 14 email. Furthermore, Plaintiffs recently learned that it is Defendants’ pattern and practice to 15 delete all electronic copies of emails from the email accounts that they use to conduct the 16 public’s business, including the email address that the Grant County Sheriff’s Office website 17 invites the public to use to contact the Sheriff, and they have continued to do so even after 18 they received requests seeking those documents. This conduct is in direct violation of the 19 Oregon Public Records Law, threatens imminent and irreparable harm, and must cease 20 immediately. Granting the Motion would cause no identifiable prejudice to Defendants. 21 Therefore, the Court should grant Plaintiffs’ requested relief. 22 B. Background 23 1. 24 Plaintiff Oregonian Publishing Company LLC is an Oregon limited liability The Parties 25 corporation. It publishes The Oregonian, a daily newspaper in Portland, both in a print 26 Page 2 - PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 87096741.2 0057220-00160 1 edition and in an electronic edition on its Internet website, OregonLive.com. Plaintiff Les 2 Zaitz is a reporter for The Oregonian/OregonLive. Defendant Grant County Sheriff’s Office (“Sheriff’s Office”) is a “public body” 3 4 within the meaning of the Oregon Public Records Law, ORS 192.410, et seq. Defendant 5 Palmer is the elected sheriff of Grant County. He is a “public body” within the meaning of 6 the Oregon Public Records Law, ORS 192.410, et seq. He is an “elected official” as that 7 term is used in ORS 192.465(2) and ORS 192.480. Sheriff’s Office and Palmer are required STOEL RIVES LLP 760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000, Portland, OR 97205 Main (503) 224-3380 Fax (503) 220-2480 8 under ORS 192.420 to make available for public inspection “any public records” not 9 otherwise exempt from disclosure under ORS 192.501 to 192.505. 10 2. 11 Defendant Palmer’s Centurytel Email Address and Its Use for Public Business The official internet website of the Grant County Sheriff’s Office invites the public to 12 13 “Contact the Sheriff's Office” and “Give us a call or send an email.” (See Daniels Dec., Ex. 14 1; see also http://grantcountysherifforegon.com/office/contact (visited July 19, 2016).) At 15 the bottom of that “Contact” page on the Sheriff’s Office website, there is a link labelled 16 “contact: General Info/Sheriff.” When a reader clicks on that link, an email form pops up, 17 containing in its address line the following address: gepalmer400@centurytel.net. (the 18 “Centurytel Address”). (Daniels Dec. ¶ 3.) In Plaintiffs’ First Request for Admission No. 1, 19 Plaintiffs stated: “Admit that, since January 2, 2016, you have used the email address 20 gepalmer400@centurytel.net to send or receive email that relates to public business.” 21 Defendants responded: “Admit.” (Daniels Dec., Ex. 2.) Defendants were right to admit this fact, as Plaintiffs have evidence that public 22 23 records—communications from and to Palmer in his official capacity—exist within that 24 account. (Id., Ex. 3.) Thus, emails sent from or received by the Centurytel Address relate to 25 public business and are “public records” within the meaning of that term in ORS 192.410(4). 26 Page 3 - PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 87096741.2 0057220-00160 1 3. Plaintiffs’ Public Record Requests 2 On February 16, 2016, Plaintiffs sent a letter to Defendant Palmer requesting records 3 under the Public Records Law, ORS 192.410 to 192.505 (the “February 16 Request”). The 4 requested records included the following category of documents: 5 All emails, received and sent, to your email account of gepalmer400@centurytel.net from Jan. 2, 2016, to present. This request is limited to emails that relate to public business, including but not limited to your performance as sheriff, matters relating to the Harney County occupation, matters relating to the community meeting in John Day, matters in any way relating to dealings by your or others with militia members, patriots, and others. This request does NOT include purely personal emails that in no manner relate to the conduct of public business. (Daniels Dec., Ex. 4.) 6 7 STOEL RIVES LLP 760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000, Portland, OR 97205 Main (503) 224-3380 Fax (503) 220-2480 8 9 10 11 Palmer did not respond to the February 16 Request. 12 On April 26, 2016, Plaintiffs sent a letter to the custodian of records of Defendant 13 Sheriff’s Office requesting records under the Public Records Law, ORS 192.410 to 192.505. 14 The records requested in that letter included the following category of documents: 15 1. All emails, received and sent, to Sheriff Glenn Palmer’s email account of gepalmer400@centurytel.net for the periods: 16 17 a. Nov. 1, 2015, to Dec. 31, 2015 18 b. Feb. 16, 2016, to present This request is limited to emails that relate to public business, including but not limited to your performance as sheriff. This request does NOT include purely personal emails that in no manner relate to the conduct of public business. (Daniels Dec., Ex. 5.) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 On April 27, 2016, Defendant Palmer purported to respond to the April 26 Request for emails related to the Centurytel Address. He did so by sending Plaintiff Zaitz a copy of the request with the handwritten notation: “I do not have these in my possession.” (Daniels Dec., Ex. 6.) 26 Page 4 - PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 87096741.2 0057220-00160 4. 1 Defendants Refuse to Provide Any Emails From the Centurytel Address and Confirm that Emails Are Deleted from the Centurytel Address 2 After receiving no or inadequate responses to their public records requests, Plaintiffs 3 4 filed this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on May 20, 2016. Emails requested 5 from the Centurytel Address are the subject of the First and Fourth Claims in Plaintiffs’ First 6 Amended Complaint. On those claims, Plaintiffs seek a judgment containing (a) a 7 declaration that the documents requested by Plaintiffs and not received to date are public STOEL RIVES LLP 760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000, Portland, OR 97205 Main (503) 224-3380 Fax (503) 220-2480 8 records that are subject to disclosure to Plaintiffs and (b) an injunction requiring Defendants 9 to disclose those documents to Plaintiffs. After Plaintiffs filed this action, Defendants (through their counsel) responded in 10 11 writing to the February 16 Request and the April 26 Request. With respect to the February 12 16 Request, Defendants responded: “Grant County Sheriff’s Office and Sheriff Palmer do 13 not possess the records requested in this specific email account.” With respect to the April 14 26 Request, Defendants responded: “Grant County Sheriff’s Office does not possess the 15 requested records.” (Daniels Dec., Exs. 7-8.) Thus, Defendants confirmed three separate 16 times that they did not “possess” a single responsive email sent from or received by Palmer in 17 his county-issued Centurytel Account. Concerned about the apparent ambiguity of Defendants’ responses and the status of 18 19 emails that (1) were clearly public records and (2) were no longer in the possession of the 20 custodians who should have maintained them, Plaintiffs requested clarification as to the 21 Centurytel Account emails. (Daniels Dec., Ex. 9.) On July 15, 2016, Plaintiffs’ counsel and 22 Defendants’ counsel had a telephone conference related, in part, to that issue. During that 23 telephone conference, Defendants’ counsel asserted the following: • 24 All public records responses related to the Centurytel Account to date were on behalf of both Sheriff’s Office and Palmer. Thus, when Defendants assert that 25 26 Page 5 - PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 87096741.2 0057220-00160 1 “Grant County Sheriff’s Office” does not possess certain records, they mean 2 that neither Sheriff’s Office nor Palmer possess the requested records. • 3 Account is deleted. 4 • STOEL RIVES LLP 5 760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000, Portland, OR 97205 Main (503) 224-3380 Fax (503) 220-2480 The electronic version of every email received into or sent from the Centurytel Contrary to Defendants’ express representations, some copies of emails are 6 printed and retained in paper files. Defendants’ apparent position, however, is 7 that the records requests did not seek hard copies of emails because they are 8 not “emails.” Defendants did not specify which emails are retained in hard 9 copy, how those emails are chosen, or why only certain emails are retained in this fashion. 10 • 11 Defendants maintain that the systematic deletion of emails from the 12 Centurytel Account is proper pursuant to the policy from the Oregon State 13 Archives. In a subsequent email, Defendants provided the E-mail Policy 14 Manual for Local Government published by the Oregon State Archives as the 15 document that allegedly supports their retention practices. (Daniels Dec. ¶ 16 12.) 17 C. Legal Standard 18 A temporary restraining order “is intended to preserve the status quo until the court 19 can rule upon the application for preliminary injunction.” See Konecranes, Inc. v. Sinclair, 20 340 F Supp 2d 1126, 1128 (D Or 2004); see also Helms v. Gilroy, 20 Or 517, 520, 26 P 851 21 (1891). ORCP 79 A provides that a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction 22 should be granted in the following circumstances: 23 A(1)(a) When it appears that a party is entitled to relief demanded in a pleading, and such relief, or any part thereof, consists of restraining the commission or continuance of some act, the commission or continuance of which during the litigation would produce injury to the party seeking the relief; or 24 25 26 Page 6 - PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 87096741.2 0057220-00160 A(1)(b) When it appears that the party against whom a judgment is sought is doing or threatens, or is about to do, or is procuring or suffering to be done, some act in violation of the rights of a party seeking judgment concerning the subject matter of the action, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual. 1 2 3 4 ORCP 79 mirrors FRCP 65. Accordingly, Oregon courts look to federal case law for 5 6 guidance in applying it. See Von Ohlen v. German Shorthaired Pointer Club of Am., Inc., 7 179 Or App 703, 710, 41 P3d 449 (2002). The Ninth Circuit applies two tests analogous to STOEL RIVES LLP 760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000, Portland, OR 97205 Main (503) 224-3380 Fax (503) 220-2480 8 ORCP 79 A(1)(a) and A(1)(b), respectively: a moving party is entitled to preliminary 9 injunctive relief if it demonstrates either (1) “‘a combination of probable success on the 10 merits and the possibility of irreparable injury’” absent the injunction, or (2) “‘that serious 11 questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in [the moving party’s] 1 12 favor.’” Stanley v. Univ. of S. Cal., 13 F3d 1313, 1319 (9th Cir 1994) (citation omitted). 13 “‘If the balance of harm tips decidedly toward the plaintiff, then the plaintiff need not show 14 as robust a likelihood of success on the merits as when the balance tips less decidedly.’” 15 Gilder v. PGA Tour, Inc., 936 F2d 417, 422 (9th Cir 1991) (citation omitted). Likewise, if a 16 plaintiff shows a strong likelihood of success on the merits, it need not make as robust a 17 showing of threatened harm. See Benda v. Grand Lodge of Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & 18 Aerospace Workers, 584 F2d 308, 315 (9th Cir 1978) (describing the two standards as 19 “merely extremes of a single continuum”). In either case, “[t]he critical element in 20 determining the test to be applied is the relative hardship to the parties.” Id. 21 22 1 “‘“[S]erious questions” refers to questions which cannot be resolved one way or the other at the hearing on the injunction and as to which the court perceives a need to preserve 23 the status quo lest one side prevent resolution of the questions or execution of any judgment by altering the status quo.’” Gilder v. PGA Tour, Inc., 936 F2d 417, 422 (9th Cir 1991) 24 (citation omitted). “‘Serious questions need not promise a certainty of success, nor even present a probability of success, but must involve a “fair chance of success on the merits.”’” 25 Id. (citation omitted). 26 Page 7 - PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 87096741.2 0057220-00160 1 D. Argument 2 1. County Records Must Be Retained Consistent with State Archives Retention Schedules 3 The legislature has determined that “the decision as to what records are retained or 4 5 destroyed is a matter of statewide public policy.” ORS 192.001(1)(a). To enforce this policy 6 the legislature enacted a statutory scheme to regulate the retention and destruction of public 7 records—ORS 192.001 through ORS 192.170. The legislature vested the State Archivist, STOEL RIVES LLP 760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000, Portland, OR 97205 Main (503) 224-3380 Fax (503) 220-2480 8 under the direction and supervision of the Secretary of State, with issuing rules and 9 regulations to carry out this policy. ORS 357.895. Pursuant to ORS 357.895, the State Archivist adopted a comprehensive framework of 10 11 administrative rules to provide procedures for the orderly retention and disposition of public 12 records. OAR chapter 166. Defendants’ responsibility for retention and destruction of 13 public records in general is addressed in OAR 166-020-0010(1) and requires Defendants to 14 maintain public records in conformance with a schedule established by the State Archivist. 15 A local agency may only destroy public records which have met the terms and conditions of 16 their scheduled retention period, and the State Archivist establishes both general and special 17 schedules for the destruction of public records. OAR 166-030-0027. OAR 166-005-0010(9) 18 defines “retention period” as “the length of time a public record must be retained as 19 authorized by an applicable records retention schedule produced and approved by The State 20 Archivist.” The retention period is calculated from the date the public record is created. 21 OAR 166-030-0027. Unlawful destruction or disposal or public records in violation of these 22 schedules constitutes a Class A misdemeanor. OAR 166-005-0000; ORS 162.305. Retention of county records, such as the ones at issue here, are addressed in OAR 23 24 166-150-0005 et seq. Those rules specify the retention periods applicable to administrative 25 records and law enforcement records, among other categories. For example, the minimum 26 retention period for several categories of Administrative Records is one year. No retention Page 8 - PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 87096741.2 0057220-00160 1 period for Administrative Records is less than one year. OAR 166-150-0005. The minimum 2 retention period for certain Law Enforcement Records is six months, and that period applies 3 only for inmate meal records. OAR 166-150-0135(46). Most law enforcement records must 4 be retained for at least one year. 5 2. 6 Defendants Violated State Law by Destroying Documents Before the Expiration of the Retention Period Defendants’ actions in (1) deleting all electronic copies of emails in the Centurytel 7 STOEL RIVES LLP 760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000, Portland, OR 97205 Main (503) 224-3380 Fax (503) 220-2480 8 Account and (2) saving only select emails in hard copy is directly contrary to those retention 9 schedules. Public bodies and elected officials must ensure that all public records in all 10 formats or mediums, including email and other electronic records, are maintained in 11 accordance with an applicable records retention schedule approved by the State Archivist. 12 ORS 192.108; OAR 166-005-0005 et seq. Destruction or deletion of the electronic copy of 13 any email before the expiration of the retention period and without retaining a printed copy is 14 not consistent with Division 150 of the State Archives Division, Oregon Administrative 15 Rules, or Oregon law. It is also a criminal violation. ORS 162.305(1) (“a person commits 16 the crime of tampering with public records if, without lawful authority, the person knowingly 17 destroys, mutilates, conceals, removes, makes a false entry in or falsely alters any public 18 record”). Defendants’ systematic deletion of email is particularly egregious because Plaintiffs’ 19 20 February 16 Request put Defendants on notice that emails within the Centurytel Account 21 were being sought. Defendants offer no explanation why the practice of email deletion 22 continued after that date. Even as to emails that are printed in hard copy, Defendants practice 23 of systematic deletion makes it more burdensome than necessary to retrieve the requested 24 records. The only document cited by Defendants as authority for their actions is the E-mail 25 26 Policy Manual for Local Government published by the Oregon State Archives. (Daniels Page 9 - PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 87096741.2 0057220-00160 1 Dec., ¶ 13 & Ex. 10.) The E-mail Manual is a general reference guide for local governments, 2 principally cities. It does not have the force of law. It does not authorize the destruction or 3 deletion of emails in a manner inconsistent with the retention schedules listed in the Oregon 4 Administrative Rules. The E-mail Manual itself confirms this: 5 Chapter 2 - Quiz 6 True or False 7 1. Public employees do not need to follow the General Records Retention Schedules when it comes to their e-mail messages? STOEL RIVES LLP 760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000, Portland, OR 97205 Main (503) 224-3380 Fax (503) 220-2480 8 9 False. If an e-mail message is a public record (see Chapter 1) then the message is subjected to the retention periods found in the General Records Retention Schedules OAR Chapter 166 Division 200 (cities) and OAR Chapter 166 Division 150 (counties and special districts). 10 11 12 (Daniels Dec., Ex. 10 at 15.) Defendants have not asserted that they have printed all emails in the Centurytel 13 14 Account during the time requested that are public records. Indeed, they have asserted exactly 15 the opposite—that they possess no emails at all. Their selective retention of critical public 16 records is inconsistent with Oregon law. The Court should order Defendants to cease this 17 practice immediately and take all necessary steps to preserve critical public records in their 18 custody. 19 3. 20 The above discussion establishes a combination of probable success on the merits, the Defendants Would Suffer No Prejudice by Entry of an Injunction Order 21 possibility of irreparable injury absent the injunction, and the fact that Defendants’ admitted 22 conduct raises serious questions with respect to their compliance with Oregon law. 23 Furthermore, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the balance of hardships tips decidedly in 24 their favor. On the one hand, all Defendants have to do is stop pressing the “Delete” button, 25 and remove any automatic deletion or other protocols to ensure that electronic documents are 26 retained when sent or received. This process likely takes a matter of minutes at most, and Page 10 - PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 87096741.2 0057220-00160 1 mostly requires Defendants to stop engaging in conduct that upsets the status quo. On the 2 other hand, not granting the requested relief means that Plaintiffs’ right to inspect records is 3 frustrated because emails may be lost or destroyed. See In Def. of Animals v. Oregon Health 4 Scis. Univ., 199 Or App 160, 189-90, 112 P3d 336 (2005) (“[T]he Public Records Law as a 5 whole embodies a strong policy in favor of the public’s right to inspect public records.”). 6 Even as to emails that are printed and retained, Defendants’ practices make it unnecessarily 7 burdensome to obtain records, as they seek to impose fees and hurdles to obtaining a STOEL RIVES LLP 760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000, Portland, OR 97205 Main (503) 224-3380 Fax (503) 220-2480 8 comprehensive record of communications to and from Palmer in his official capacity. 9 4. Defendants’ Responses Have Not Been Forthcoming Defendants’ own responses demonstrate that they are stonewalling. After failing to 10 11 respond to the February 16 Request, Palmer responded to the April 26 Request by stating “I 12 do not have these in my possession.” Defendants’ counsel then twice reiterated that denial in 13 their responses to the February 16 Request and the April 26 Request. As they admitted on 14 July 15, 2016, however, they do possess some responsive emails from the Centurytel 15 Account. Even after repeated requests, Defendants did not make this revelation until five 16 months after Plaintiffs’ first request for public records. Defendants’ apparent view is that Plaintiffs requested “emails,” and an email is no 17 18 longer an “email” if it exists in hard copy as opposed to electronic format. And they 19 apparently believe that Defendants do not “possess” any responsive emails if they no longer 20 exist in electronic format because they have chosen to delete them. This assertion is patently 21 frivolous. An email does not cease to be an email because it exists in hard copy as opposed 22 to electronic form. A stack of printed emails is exactly that: a stack of emails. Indeed, the 23 State Archivist’s “E-mail Policy Manual for Local Government,” on which defendants are 24 purporting to rely with respect to their email retention policy, expressly recognizes that an 25 “email” can exist in either electronic or paper form: “There are three basic methods of 26 preservation for e-mail: electronic, paper and a combination of the two.” (Daniels Dec., Ex. Page 11 - PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 87096741.2 0057220-00160 1 10 at 19.) The only fair and common sense interpretation of Plaintiff’s public records 2 requests for “emails” is that Plaintiffs were requesting emails in whatever form they existed. 3 Defendants’ tortured interpretation of Plaintiffs’ requests and their technical parsing of 4 language raise serious doubts about whether their responses are complete and accurate. Defendants’ assertion that they do not “possess” emails also raises concerns. The 5 6 Public Records Law applies to “custodians” who have a duty to make all nonexempt public 7 records available for inspection and copying. ORS 192.410(1)(b) defines “custodian” as “[a] STOEL RIVES LLP 760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000, Portland, OR 97205 Main (503) 224-3380 Fax (503) 220-2480 8 public body mandated, directly or indirectly, to create, maintain, care for or control a public 9 record.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, the relevant test for whether a custodian is complying 10 with its responsibilities is not simply whether the custodian presently “possesses” the record, 11 but whether the custodian has sufficient custody or control of the record to make it available 12 for inspection. A custodian cannot evade its responsibilities under the Oregon Public 13 Records Law by placing documents in a storage shed, for example, and then argue that it 14 does not “possess” the record at issue. 15 E. Conclusion 16 Defendants’ conduct with respect to the Centurytel Account has violated both the 17 letter and spirit of the Public Records Law and merits injunctive relief. Plaintiffs’ Motion 18 should be granted. 19 DATED: July 22, 2016. 20 STOEL RIVES LLP 21 22 /s/ Brad S. Daniels CHARLES F. HINKLE, OSB No. 710839 charles.hinkle@stoel.com BRAD S. DANIELS, OSB No. 025178 brad.daniels@stoel.com 23 24 25 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 26 Page 12 - PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 87096741.2 0057220-00160 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 I hereby certify that I served the foregoing PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 2 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE on the 3 following named person(s) on the date indicated below by: 4  mailing with postage prepaid 5  hand delivery 6  facsimile transmission 7  overnight delivery STOEL RIVES LLP 760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000, Portland, OR 97205 Main (503) 224-3380 Fax (503) 220-2480 8  email 9  notice of electronic filing via the Odyssey File and 10 Serve system 11 to said person(s) a true copy thereof, contained in a sealed envelope, if by mail, addressed to 12 said person(s) at his or her last-known address(es) indicated below. 13 Benjamin Boyd Hostetter Law Group, LLP 203 E. Main Street, Suite 2 Enterprise, OR 97201 14 15 16 17 18 DATED: July 22, 2016. STOEL RIVES LLP 19 /s/ Brad S. Daniels BRAD S, DANIELS, OSB NO. 025178 brad.daniels@stoel.com Telephone: (503)-224-3380 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Page 1 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 87231772.1 0057220-00160