Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 163 Filed 04/25/18 Page 1 of 8

1

THE HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

ABDIQAFAR WAGAFE, et al., on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

10
11
12

v.
DONALD TRUMP, President of the
United States; et al.,

13

Defendants.

No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT
DOCUMENTS EX PARTE, IN CAMERA
NOTED ON MOTION CALENDAR:
APRIL 27, 2018

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ)
139581553.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 163 Filed 04/25/18 Page 2 of 8

1
I.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

Defendants’ motion for leave to submit the declarations of FBI Executive Assistant
Director Carl Ghattas and USCIS Associate Director Matthew D. Emrich ex parte and in camera
is without merit. First, Defendants have waived any right to assert new privileges at this
juncture, well after they failed to comply with the Court’s discovery orders and the parties’
agreed production timelines. In response to Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions, Defendants now
attempt to distract from the core issue of their discovery misconduct by belatedly seeking to
submit declarations in support of their privilege assertions. This is not only procedurally
improper but appears to be another tactic to delay discovery further. Second, even if Defendants
are permitted to litigate anew the merits of their privilege assertions, they fail to meet the high
burden to justify ex parte, in camera review of the declarations. Defendants’ motion should be
denied.
II.

14
15

INTRODUCTION

A.

ARGUMENT

Defendants May Not Avoid Sanctions by Re-Litigating the Underlying Privilege
Issue.

16

Seemingly in an effort to avoid sanctions for failing to comply with the Court’s orders,

17

Defendants improperly seek to re-litigate the merits of the orders that they violated. The Court

18

should not consider materials ex parte and in camera where doing so would allow Defendants to

19

circumvent the Court’s prior orders.

20

From the outset, the Court has rejected Defendants’ attempts to withhold information

21

about why the named Plaintiffs were subjected to CARRP. Plaintiffs moved to compel

22

production of this information, challenging Defendants’ unsupported assertion that it was

23

privileged. In October 2017, the Court ordered Defendants to produce these documents. Dkt. 98

24

at 4. Defendants should have—and have cited no reason why they could not have—addressed

25

the merits of their privilege claims in response to Plaintiffs’ motion to compel. Instead,

26

Defendants violated the Court’s order by producing heavily redacted A-Files and, only when
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ)–1
139581553.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 163 Filed 04/25/18 Page 3 of 8

1

confronted with the prospect of sanctions for that and other violations, now ask to explain the

2

merits of their privilege assertions ex parte and in camera. This is too little, too late. See Dkt.

3

150 at 4 (explaining why Defendants have waived their right to support their privilege

4

assertions). In their motion for leave to submit documents ex parte and in camera, Defendants

5

claim that “[t]he Court’s consideration of these declarations is necessary to the Court’s full

6

understanding of Defendants’ response to Plaintiffs’ sanctions motion.” Dkt. 147 at 1. Yet

7

Defendants’ supplemental brief offers no explanation for how or why these declarations should

8

inform the Court’s decision on sanctions.1 Defendants’ request for ex parte, in camera review is

9

procedurally barred.

10
11

B.

Defendants Have Not Met the High Burden to Justify Ex Parte, In Camera Review.
Even if Defendants’ request were procedurally proper, Defendants have not met their

12

burden for justifying ex parte, in camera review. “[C]ourts routinely express their disfavor with

13

ex parte proceedings and permit such proceedings only in the rarest of circumstances.” United

14

States v. Libby, 429 F. Supp. 2d 18, 21 (D.D.C.), opinion amended on reconsideration, 429 F.

15

Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2006); see also Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341 U.S.

16

123, 170 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring) (observing that “fairness can rarely be obtained by

17

secret, one-sided determination of facts decisive of rights” and holding use of ex parte evidence

18

unauthorized by statute in employment context, even given national security concerns).

19

Exceptions to the general rule against ex parte, in camera submissions “are both few and tightly

20

contained.” Abourezk v. Reagan, 785 F.2d 1043, 1061 (D.C. Cir. 1986). The court in Abourezk

21

identified three narrow exceptions to the presumption against ex parte, in camera proceedings:

22

(1) review of the redacted or withheld documents to assess the claim of privilege, (2) in the face

23
24
25
26

1

Further, aside from boilerplate language regarding Department of Justice regulations related to the
handling of classified material, Defendants fail to explain, as requested by the Court at the April 12, 2018 hearing,
what the ex parte, in camera process would entail and how this motion relates to Defendants’ individual claims of
privilege. Tr. 27:11-16.
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ)–2
139581553.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 163 Filed 04/25/18 Page 4 of 8

1

of a proper invocation of the state secrets privilege, and (3) when a statute expressly provides for

2

such proceedings. Id. Defendants’ request does not fall within any of these three exceptions.

3

First, Defendants do not seek to submit withheld documents for adjudication of the scope

4

of their asserted privilege. Although the “inspection of materials by a judge isolated in chambers

5

may occur when a party seeks to prevent use of the materials in the litigation,” this exception is

6

intended to facilitate the judge’s review of the actual materials the party seeks to protect from

7

disclosure. See Abourezk, 785 F.2d at 1061; Arieff v. U.S. Dep’t of Navy, 712 F.2d 1462, 1469

8

(D.C. Cir. 1983) (distinguishing between the submission of documents and the submission of

9

affidavits, and observing that the latter constitutes “a greater distortion of normal judicial

10

process, since it combines the element of secrecy with the element of one-sided, ex

11

parte presentation”).2 Indeed, “[w]hile a court may review documents in camera to assess the

12

scope of a privilege, the court may not rely on an ex parte and in camera review of documents to

13

resolve an issue on the merits.” See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK,

14

2015 WL 3863249, at *10 (N.D. Cal. June 19, 2015).

15

Here, Defendants do not ask the Court to review the withheld A-File documents and

16

decide whether they are in fact privileged. Instead, they seek to submit two declarations that

17

apparently contain Defendants’ explanation as to why these documents purportedly implicate

18

national security concerns—information that Defendants should have provided in their privilege

19

logs to enable Plaintiffs to challenge the privilege assertions. Moreover, Defendants claim these

20

declarations are relevant not simply to an assessment of the scope of the privileges, but also to

21

the Court’s adjudication of the merits of Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions. Dkt. 147 at 1. But the

22

Court should not resolve the merits of Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions using information that

23

Plaintiffs cannot see and thus to which they can offer no reply. See United States v. Abuhamra,

24
2

25
26

Defendants’ citation to cases that exclusively discuss the ex parte, in camera review of underlying
documents is thus unavailing. See, e.g., In re City of New York, 607 F.3d 923, 948–49 (2d Cir. 2010) (“[R]ather
than require that the parties file the potentially privileged documents with the court, the district court may, in the
exercise of its informed discretion and on the basis of the circumstances presented, require that the party possessing
the documents appear ex parte in chambers to submit the documents for in camera review by the judge.”).
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ)–3
139581553.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 163 Filed 04/25/18 Page 5 of 8

1

389 F.3d 309, 322 (2d Cir. 2004) (rejecting attempt to rely on secret evidence and holding that

2

“due process demands that the individual and the government each be afforded the opportunity

3

not only to advance their respective positions but to correct or contradict arguments or evidence

4

offered by the other”) (emphasis added).

5

Additionally, Defendants fail to support their contention that the rationale for the

6

privilege is itself privileged. They have not endeavored to explain why “release of the

7

declaration[s] would disclose the very information that the agency seeks to protect,” see

8

Greyshock v. U.S. Coast Guard, 107 F.3d 16, 1997 WL 51514, *3 (9th Cir. Feb. 6, 1997), nor

9

have they attempted to justify ex parte submission in general terms without compromising the

10

information they seek to protect, see United States v. Thompson, 827 F.2d 1254, 1259 (9th Cir.

11

1987).

12

Second, courts have reviewed materials ex parte and in camera when the government has

13

properly invoked the state secrets privilege, demonstrated “compelling national security

14

concerns,” and disclosed, “prior to any in camera examination, . . . as much of the material as it

15

could divulge without compromising the privilege.” Abourezk, 785 F.2d at 1061. But

16

Defendants have not invoked the state secrets privilege, and the cases they cite that involved ex

17

parte, in camera procedures when the state secrets privilege had properly been invoked are

18

therefore inapposite. See, e.g., Kasza v. Browner, 133 F.3d 1159, 1169 (9th Cir. 1998) (“in

19

camera review of both classified declarations was an appropriate means to resolve the

20

applicability and scope of the state secrets privilege”). Nor have Defendants made any effort to

21

create a public record of their withholding, accompanied by “a detailed public justification” and

22

“an index which correlates the asserted justifications with the contents of the withheld

23

document.” Phillippi v. Cent. Intelligence Agency, 546 F.2d 1009, 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1976). To

24

the contrary, the publicly filed FBI declaration states only that Defendants “assert[] the law

25

enforcement and deliberative process privileges over FBI information contained in the A-files

26

and any other USCIS records” on the Named Plaintiffs, and notes that “more detail” will be
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ)–4
139581553.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 163 Filed 04/25/18 Page 6 of 8

1

provided in the ex parte, in camera declaration. Dkt. 146-4, ¶ 5 (Ghattas Declaration). Thus,

2

even if Defendants had invoked the state secrets privilege, ex parte, in camera review would not

3

be proper on this record.

4

Finally, Defendants identify no statute that expressly permits the use of ex parte, in

5

camera procedures here. See Abourezk, 785 F.2d at 1061; see, e.g., 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B)

6

(providing for in camera inspection in FOIA cases); 18 U.S.C. App. 3 § 4 (ex parte, in camera

7

review available under the Classified Information Procedures Act). Accordingly, this exception

8

does not apply, and the various cases Defendants cite that allowed ex parte, in camera review

9

pursuant to statute are irrelevant.3

10

Ultimately, that the Court “has the authority” to review materials ex parte and in camera,

11

Dkt. 154 at 2—and that other courts have considered such materials under specific

12

circumstances—says little about whether review of Defendants’ proffered materials ex parte and

13

in camera is warranted here. Considered under the proper standard, Defendants’ request fails.

14

III.

CONCLUSION

15

Because Defendants’ request for ex parte, in camera review is procedurally improper,

16

and Defendants have not demonstrated that ex parte, in camera review of either declaration is

17

warranted, Defendants’ motion should be denied.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

3
For instance, Defendants cite ACLU v. Department of Defense, No. 09-cv-8071, 2012 WL 13075286
(S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2012), but neglect to note that the court in that case expressly grounded its ruling vis-à-vis ex
parte submission “in the FOIA context.” Id. at *1; see also United States v. Ott, 827 F.2d 473, 476 (9th Cir. 1987)
(concerning “section 1806(f)’s requirement that the district court conduct an ex parte, in camera review of FISA
materials upon request of the Attorney General”); United States v. Klimavicius–Viloria, 144 F.3d 1249, 1261 (9th
Cir. 1998) (use of procedures under CIPA).

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ)–5
139581553.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 163 Filed 04/25/18 Page 7 of 8

1
2
3
4
5
6

By:
s/Jennifer Pasquarella (admitted pro hac vice)
s/Sameer Ahmed (admitted pro hac vice)
ACLU Foundation of Southern California
1313 W. 8th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 977-5236
Facsimile: (213) 997-5297
jpasquarella@aclusocal.org
sahmed@aclusocal.org

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

s/Matt Adams
s/Glenda M. Aldana Madrid
Matt Adams #28287
Glenda M. Aldana Madrid #46987
Northwest Immigrant Rights Project
615 Second Ave., Ste. 400
Seattle, WA 98122
Telephone: (206) 957-8611
Facsimile: (206) 587-4025
matt@nwirp.org
glenda@nwirp.org
s/Stacy Tolchin (admitted pro hac vice)
Law Offices of Stacy Tolchin
634 S. Spring St. Suite 500A
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Telephone: (213) 622-7450
Facsimile: (213) 622-7233
Stacy@tolchinimmigration.com

s/Trina Realmuto (admitted pro hac vice)
s/Kristin Macleod-Ball (admitted pro hac vice)
Trina Realmuto
Kristin Macleod-Ball
American Immigration Council
100 Summer St., 23rd Fl.
Boston, MA 02110
Tel: (857) 305-3600
Email: trealmuto@immcouncil.org
Email: kmacleod-ball@immcouncil.org

s/Hugh Handeyside
Hugh Handeyside #39792
s/Lee Gelernt (admitted pro hac vice)
s/Hina Shamsi (admitted pro hac vice)
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 549-2616
Facsimile: (212) 549-2654
lgelernt@aclu.org
hhandeyside@aclu.org
hshamsi@aclu.org

s/Emily Chiang
Emily Chiang #50517
ACLU of Washington Foundation
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630
Seattle, WA 98164
Telephone: (206) 624-2184
Echiang@aclu-wa.org

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

s/ Harry H. Schneider, Jr.
Harry H. Schneider, Jr. #9404
s/ Nicholas P. Gellert
Nicholas P. Gellert #18041
s/ David A. Perez
David A. Perez #43959
s/ Laura K. Hennessey
Laura K. Hennessey #47447
Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: 206.359.8000
Facsimile: 206.359.9000
Email: HSchneider@perkinscoie.com
NGellert@perkinscoie.com
DPerez@perkinscoie.com
LHennessey@perkinscoie.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ)–6
139581553.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 163 Filed 04/25/18 Page 8 of 8

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

The undersigned certifies that on the dated indicated below, I caused service of the

3

foregoing PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN

4

SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT EX PARTE, IN

5

CAMERA via the CM/ECF system that will automatically send notice of such filing to all

6

counsel of record herein.

7

DATED this 25th day of April, 2018 at Seattle, Washington.

8
By: s/ Laura K. Hennessey
Laura K. Hennessey #47447
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: 206.359.8000
Facsimile: 206.359.9000
Email: LHennessey@perkinscoie.com

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ)–1
139581553.1

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 163-1 Filed 04/25/18 Page 1 of 4

1

THE HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES

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

7
8

ABDIQAFAR WAGAFE, et al., on behalf of
9 themselves and others similarly situated,
10
11

Plaintiffs,
v.

12 DONALD TRUMP, President of the United
States, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14

No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO SUBMIT DOCUMENTS EX PARTE,
IN CAMERA
NOTED ON MOTION CALENDAR:
APRIL 27, 2018

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Perkins Coie LLP

139541908.2

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 163-1 Filed 04/25/18 Page 2 of 4

1

THE COURT, having considered Defendants’ Motion for Leave to Submit Documents

2

Ex Parte, In Camera (Dkt. #147), the supplemental briefing submitted by the parties in support

3

of and in opposition to the motion, and the files and pleadings in this case, hereby ORDERS that

4

Defendants’ motion is DENIED.

5

DATED this ___________ day of ______________________, 2018.

6
7

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9

.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFS’ MOT. TO
SUBMIT DOCUMENTS EX PARTE, IN CAMERA
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 1
139541908.2

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 163-1 Filed 04/25/18 Page 3 of 4

1

DATED: April 25, 2018

2

Presented by:

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

s/Jennifer Pasquarella (admitted pro hac vice)
s/Sameer Ahmed (admitted pro hac vice)
ACLU Foundation of Southern California
1313 West 8th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 977-5236
Facsimile: (213) 997-5297
Email: jpasquarella@aclusocal.org
sahmed@aclusocal.org
s/Matt Adams
s/Glenda M. Aldana Madrid
Matt Adams #28287
Glenda M. Aldana Madrid #46987
Northwest Immigrant Rights Project
615 Second Avenue, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 957-8611
Facsimile: (206) 587-4025
Email: matt@nwirp.org
glenda@nwirp.org

s/Trina Realmuto (admitted pro hac vice)
s/Kristin Macleod-Ball (admitted pro hac vice)
Trina Realmuto
Kristin Macleod-Ball
American Immigration Council
100 Summer St., 23rd Fl.
Boston, MA 02110
Tel: (857) 305-3600
Email: trealmuto@immcouncil.org
kmacleod-ball@immcouncil.org

s/Hugh Handeyside
Hugh Handeyside #39792
s/Lee Gelernt (admitted pro hac vice)
s/Hina Shamsi (admitted pro hac vice)
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 549-2616
Facsimile: (212) 549-2654
Email: lgelernt@aclu.org
hhandeyside@aclu.org
hshamsi@aclu.org

s/Emily Chiang
Emily Chiang #50517
ACLU of Washington Foundation
901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630
Seattle, WA 98164
Telephone: (206) 624-2184
Email: Echiang@aclu-wa.org

19

21
22
23
24
25

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: 206.359.8000
Facsimile: 206.359.9000
Email: HSchneider@perkinscoie.com
NGellert@perkinscoie.com
DPerez@perkinscoie.com
LHennessey@perkinscoie.com

s/Stacy Tolchin (admitted pro hac vice)
Law Offices of Stacy Tolchin
634 S. Spring Street Suite 500A
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Telephone: (213) 622-7450
Facsimile: (213) 622-7233
Email: Stacy@tolchinimmigration.com

18

20

s/ Harry H. Schneider, Jr.
Harry H. Schneider, Jr. #9404
s/ Nicholas P. Gellert
Nicholas P. Gellert #18041
s/ David A. Perez
David A. Perez #43959
s/ Laura K. Hennessey
Laura K. Hennessey #47447

26
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFS’ MOT. TO
SUBMIT DOCUMENTS EX PARTE, IN CAMERA
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 2
139541908.2

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000

 Case 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ Document 163-1 Filed 04/25/18 Page 4 of 4

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

The undersigned certifies that on the dated indicated below, I caused service of the

3

foregoing [PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

4

SUBMIT EX PARTE, IN CAMERA via the CM/ECF system that will automatically send notice

5

of such filing to all counsel of record herein.

6

DATED this 25th day of April, 2018 at Seattle, Washington.

7
By: s/ Laura K. Hennessey
Laura K. Hennessey #47447
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Perkins Coie LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Telephone: 206.359.8000
Facsimile: 206.359.9000
Email: LHennessey@perkinscoie.com

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
(No. 2:17-cv-00094-RAJ) – 1

139541908.2

Perkins Coie LLP

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101-3099
Phone: 206.359.8000
Fax: 206.359.9000