Case 2:20-cv-00887-RAJ Document 43 Filed 06/30/20 Page 1 of 22 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 8 9 10 11 BLACK LIVES MATTER SEATTLE-KING COUNTY, ABIE EKENEZAR, SHARON SAKAMOTO, MURACO KYASHNATOCHA, ALEXANDER WOLDEAB, NATHALIE GRAHAM, AND ALEXANDRA CHEN, 12 No. 2:20-CV-00887 RAJ DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, 13 vs. 14 CITY OF SEATTLE, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Defendant City of Seattle (“Defendant”), by and through its attorneys of record, submits its 18 Answer and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiffs’ Complaint as follows: 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 1. This Paragraph states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the 21 extent a response is required, Defendant DENIES this Paragraph as phrased. Defendant ADMITS 22 that Plaintiffs bring a Complaint against Defendant. 23 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT - 1 2:20-CV-00887 RAJ Peter S. Holmes Seattle City Attorney 701 5th Avenue, Suite 2050 Seattle, WA 98104-7095 (206) 684-8200 Case 2:20-cv-00887-RAJ Document 43 Filed 06/30/20 Page 2 of 22 1 2. This Paragraph states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent 2 a response is required, Defendant DENIES this Paragraph as phrased. To the extent the allegations 3 of Paragraph 2 seek to paraphrase or characterize the contents of a written document, the document 4 speaks for itself and the Defendant denies the allegations to the extent that they are inconsistent with 5 that document. Defendant ADMITS that the article referenced in footnote 2 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint 6 contains the following language referenced in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Defendant 7 ADMITS that Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief. 8 3. Defendant ADMITS that news reports support Plaintiffs’ position. 9 4. Defendant ADMITS that news reports support Plaintiffs’ position. 10 5. Defendant ADMITS that news reports support Plaintiffs’ position. This Paragraph 11 12 states legal conclusions to which no response is required. 6. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this 13 Paragraph. Defendant ADMITS that news reports support Plaintiffs’ position. Further, this 14 Paragraph states legal conclusions to which no response is required. 15 16 17 18 19 7. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph as phrased. Defendant ADMITS that news reports support Plaintiffs’ position. 8. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 9. Defendant ADMITS the allegations set forth in this Paragraph in part. Defendant 20 admits that demonstrators have gathered to protest against widespread systematic injustices against 21 Black people and other people of color. 22 23 10. This Paragraph states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant DENIES this Paragraph as phrased. DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT - 2 2:20-CV-00887 RAJ Peter S. Holmes Seattle City Attorney 701 5th Avenue, Suite 2050 Seattle, WA 98104-7095 (206) 684-8200 Case 2:20-cv-00887-RAJ Document 43 Filed 06/30/20 Page 3 of 22 11. 1 This Paragraph states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the 2 extent a response is required, Defendant DENIES this Paragraph as phrased. Defendant ADMITS 3 that the DOJ Settlement Agreement referenced in footnote 3 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint can be found 4 at the URL referenced in footnote 3 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 5 12. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph. 6 13. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this 7 Paragraph as to Plaintiffs’ intent and motivation. Defendant DENIES the remaining allegations in 8 this Paragraph as phrased. Further answering, Defendant ADMITS that Plaintiffs seek injunctive 9 relief. 10 A. SPD’s “Less-Lethal” Weapons and “Crowd Control” Arsenal 11 14. To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 14 seek to paraphrase or characterize the 12 contents of a written document, the document speaks for itself and the Defendant denies the 13 allegations to the extent that they are inconsistent with that document. 14 15 16 17 15. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph as phrased. Defendant ADMITS that in June 2020, SPD used crowd management tools. 16. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph as phrased. Defendant ADMITS that SPD officers used crowd management tools, including CS gas and oleoresin capsicum spray. 18 17. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph. 19 18. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph as phrased. 20 19. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph as phrased. 21 20. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this 22 Paragraph. To the extent a response is required, Defendant ADMITS that the articles referenced in 23 Paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint can be found at the URLs referenced in footnotes 5, 6 and 7 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT - 3 2:20-CV-00887 RAJ Peter S. Holmes Seattle City Attorney 701 5th Avenue, Suite 2050 Seattle, WA 98104-7095 (206) 684-8200 Case 2:20-cv-00887-RAJ Document 43 Filed 06/30/20 Page 4 of 22 1 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 20 seek to paraphrase or 2 characterize the contents of a written document, the document speaks for itself and the Defendant 3 denies the allegations to the extent that they are inconsistent with that document 4 21. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this 5 Paragraph. To the extent a response is required, Defendant ADMITS that the articles referenced in 6 Paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint can be found at the URLs referenced in footnote 8, 9 and 10 7 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 21 seek to paraphrase or 8 characterize the contents of a written document, the document speaks for itself and the Defendant 9 denies the allegations to the extent that they are inconsistent with that document. 10 22. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this 11 Paragraph. To the extent a response is required, Defendant ADMITS that the article referenced in 12 Paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint can be found at the URL referenced in footnote 11 of 13 Plaintiffs’ Complaint. To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 22 seek to paraphrase or 14 characterize the contents of a written document, the document speaks for itself and Defendant 15 denies the allegations to the extent that they are inconsistent with that document 16 B. Heightened Risks of COVID-19 Transmission from Less-Lethal Weapons 17 23. 18 19 Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 24. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this 20 Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. Defendants ADMIT that the website referenced in 21 Paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint can be found at the URL referenced in footnote 12 of 22 Plaintiffs’ Complaint. To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 24 seek to paraphrase or 23 characterize the contents of a written document, the document speaks for itself and Defendant DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT - 4 2:20-CV-00887 RAJ Peter S. Holmes Seattle City Attorney 701 5th Avenue, Suite 2050 Seattle, WA 98104-7095 (206) 684-8200 Case 2:20-cv-00887-RAJ Document 43 Filed 06/30/20 Page 5 of 22 1 2 denies the allegations to the extent that they are inconsistent with that document. 25. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this 3 Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. Defendant ADMITS that the website referenced in 4 Paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint can be found at the URL referenced in footnotes 13 and 14 of 5 Plaintiffs’ Complaint. To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 25 seek to paraphrase or 6 characterize the contents of a written document, the document speaks for itself and Defendant 7 denies the allegations to the extent that they are inconsistent with that document 8 26. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this 9 Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. Defendant ADMITS that the website referenced in 10 Paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint can be found at the URL referenced in footnote 15 of 11 Plaintiffs’ Complaint. To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 26 seek to paraphrase or 12 characterize the contents of a written document, the document speaks for itself and Defendant 13 denies the allegations to the extent that they are inconsistent with that document 14 15 16 17 27. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 28. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. III. 18 19 20 21 22 23 29. PARTIES Defendant DENIES this Paragraph as phrased. Defendant ADMITS that Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief. 30. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 31. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT - 5 2:20-CV-00887 RAJ Peter S. Holmes Seattle City Attorney 701 5th Avenue, Suite 2050 Seattle, WA 98104-7095 (206) 684-8200 Case 2:20-cv-00887-RAJ Document 43 Filed 06/30/20 Page 6 of 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 32. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 33. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 34. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 35. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 36. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph as phrased. Defendant ADMITS that the City of Seattle is a municipality within the State of Washington. III. 12 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 13 37. This Paragraph states legal conclusions for which an answer is not required. 14 38. This Paragraph states legal conclusions for which an answer is not required. IV. 15 16 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. Protestors Demonstrating against Police Brutality Are Met with Brutality by the SPD 17 39. Defendant ADMITS the allegations set forth in this Paragraph. 40. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph as phrased. Defendant ADMITS that SPD 18 19 officers used crowd management tools. This Paragraph also states legal conclusions for which an 20 answer is not required. 21 41. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph. 42. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph. 22 23 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT - 6 2:20-CV-00887 RAJ Peter S. Holmes Seattle City Attorney 701 5th Avenue, Suite 2050 Seattle, WA 98104-7095 (206) 684-8200 Case 2:20-cv-00887-RAJ Document 43 Filed 06/30/20 Page 7 of 22 1 B. Timeline of Excessive Police Force at Protests 2 43. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph as phrased. Defendant ADMITS that on May 29, 3 2020, SPD officers used crowd management tools. To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 43 4 seek to paraphrase or characterize the contents of a written document, the document speaks for 5 itself and Defendant denies the allegations to the extent that they are inconsistent with that 6 document 7 44. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph as phrased. To the extent the allegations of 8 Paragraph 44 seek to paraphrase or characterize the contents of a written document, the document 9 speaks for itself and Defendant denies the allegations to the extent that they are inconsistent with 10 11 that document 45. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph as phrased. To the extent the allegations of 12 Paragraph 45 seek to paraphrase or characterize the contents of a written document, the document 13 speaks for itself and Defendant denies the allegations to the extent that they are inconsistent with 14 that document 15 46. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph as phrased. Defendant ADMITS that the press 16 release referenced in Paragraph 46 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint can be found at the URL referenced in 17 footnote 20 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 46 seek to 18 paraphrase or characterize the contents of a written document, the document speaks for itself and 19 Defendant denies the allegations to the extent that they are inconsistent with that document 20 47. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph as phrased. Defendant ADMITS that the press 21 release referenced in Paragraph 47 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint can be found at the URL referenced in 22 footnotes 20 and 21 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 47 seek to 23 paraphrase or characterize the contents of a written document, the document speaks for itself and DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT - 7 2:20-CV-00887 RAJ Peter S. Holmes Seattle City Attorney 701 5th Avenue, Suite 2050 Seattle, WA 98104-7095 (206) 684-8200 Case 2:20-cv-00887-RAJ Document 43 Filed 06/30/20 Page 8 of 22 1 2 Defendant denies the allegations to the extent that they are inconsistent with that document 48. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph as phrased. To the extent the allegations of 3 Paragraph 48 seek to paraphrase or characterize the contents of a written document, the document 4 speaks for itself and Defendant denies the allegations to the extent that they are inconsistent with 5 that document 6 49. To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 49 seek to paraphrase or characterize the 7 contents of a video, the video speaks for itself and Defendant denies the allegations to the extent that 8 they are inconsistent with that video. Defendant ADMITS that the video referenced in footnote 23 of 9 Plaintiffs’ Complaint is one video from one perspective. 10 50. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph as phrased. Defendant ADMITS that on June 2, 11 2020, SPD used crowd management tools. Defendant ADMITS that the video referenced in 12 footnote 24 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint is one video from one perspective. Defendant ADMITS that 13 the SPD blotter post referenced in footnote 24 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint speaks for itself. 14 51. To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 51 seek to paraphrase or characterize the 15 contents of a written document, the document speaks for itself and Defendant denies the allegations 16 to the extent that they are inconsistent with that document. Defendant ADMITS that the letter from 17 Mariko Lockhart referenced in footnote 25 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint can be found at the URL in 18 footnote 25 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. 19 52. To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 52 seek to paraphrase or characterize the 20 contents of a written document, the document speaks for itself and Defendant denies the allegations 21 to the extent that they are inconsistent with that document. Defendant ADMITS that the article 22 referenced in footnote 26 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint can be found at the URL in footnote 26 of Plaintiffs’ 23 Complaint. DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT - 8 2:20-CV-00887 RAJ Peter S. Holmes Seattle City Attorney 701 5th Avenue, Suite 2050 Seattle, WA 98104-7095 (206) 684-8200 Case 2:20-cv-00887-RAJ Document 43 Filed 06/30/20 Page 9 of 22 53. 1 To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 53 seek to paraphrase or characterize the 2 contents of a written document, the document speaks for itself and Defendant DENIES the allegations 3 to the extent that they are inconsistent with that document. Defendant ADMITS that the article 4 referenced in footnotes 26 and 27 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint can be found at the URL in footnote 26 of 5 Plaintiffs’ Complaint. The referenced document speaks for itself. 54. 6 To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 54 seek to paraphrase or characterize the 7 contents of a written document, the document speaks for itself and Defendant DENIES the allegations 8 to the extent that they are inconsistent with that document. 9 . 55. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph as phrased. 10 56. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph. 11 57. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph as phrased. To the extent the allegations of 12 Paragraph 57 seek to paraphrase or characterize the contents of a written document or video, the 13 document or video speaks for itself and Defendant denies the allegations to the extent that they are 14 inconsistent with that document or video. 15 58. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph as phrased. To the extent the allegations of 16 Paragraph 58 seek to paraphrase or characterize the contents of a written document or video, the 17 document or video speaks for itself and Defendant denies the allegations to the extent that they are 18 inconsistent with that document or video. 19 59. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph as phrased. Defendant ADMITS that the KOMO 20 news reporters’ version of the events of June 6, 2020 can be found at the URL referenced in 21 footnote 32 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 59 seek to 22 paraphrase or characterize the contents of a written document or video, the document or video 23 speaks for itself and Defendant denies the allegations to the extent that they are inconsistent with DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT - 9 2:20-CV-00887 RAJ Peter S. Holmes Seattle City Attorney 701 5th Avenue, Suite 2050 Seattle, WA 98104-7095 (206) 684-8200 Case 2:20-cv-00887-RAJ Document 43 Filed 06/30/20 Page 10 of 22 1 that document or video. 2 60. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph. 3 61. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph. This Paragraph also states legal conclusions for 4 which an answer is not required. 5 C. SPD’s Claimed Voluntary Ban on Tear Gas 6 62. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph as phrased. Defendant ADMITS that the article 7 referenced in footnotes 33 and 34 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint is a news article reporting on the events 8 of June 5, 2020 and can be found at the URL referenced in footnotes 33 and 34 of Plaintiffs’ 9 Complaint. To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 62 seek to paraphrase or characterize the 10 contents of a written document, the document speaks for itself and Defendant denies the allegations 11 to the extent that they are inconsistent with that document. 12 63. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph as phrased. 13 64. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph as phrased. Portions of this Paragraph state legal 14 conclusions for which an answer is not required. To the extent an answer is required, Defendant 15 ADMITS that the videos referenced in footnote 35 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint are videos from certain 16 perspectives and can be found at the URL referenced in footnote 35 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. To the 17 extent the allegations of Paragraph 64 seek to summarize or characterize the contents of videos, the 18 videos speaks for themselves and Defendant denies the allegations to the extent that they are 19 inconsistent with the referenced videos. 20 65. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph as phrased. Defendant ADMITS that the press 21 conference referenced in Paragraph 65 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint can be accessed at the URL 22 referenced in footnote 36 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 66 23 seek to paraphrase or characterize the contents of a video, the video speaks for itself and Defendant DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT - 10 2:20-CV-00887 RAJ Peter S. Holmes Seattle City Attorney 701 5th Avenue, Suite 2050 Seattle, WA 98104-7095 (206) 684-8200 Case 2:20-cv-00887-RAJ Document 43 Filed 06/30/20 Page 11 of 22 1 2 denies the allegations to the extent that they are inconsistent with that video. 66. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph as phrased. To the extent the allegations of 3 Paragraph 66 seek to paraphrase or characterize the contents of a written document or referenced 4 video, the document speaks for itself and the Defendant denies the allegations to the extent that they 5 are inconsistent with that document or video. 6 D. The City’s Illegal Actions Caused and Are Causing Injuries to Plaintiffs 7 67. The City DENIES this Paragraph as phrased. To the extent a response is required, 8 Defendant ADMITS that on June 4, 2020, the City of Seattle filed in case 2:12-cv-01282-JLR a 9 Notice to advise the Court that it is withdrawing from the Joint Motion to Terminate Paragraphs 69 10 – 168 of the Consent Decree (Dkt. 621). 11 68. This Paragraph states legal conclusions to which no response is required. 12 69. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this 13 14 15 Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 70. This Paragraph states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendant DENIES this Paragraph. 16 1. Black Lives Matter Seattle-King County 17 71. 18 19 Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 72. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this 20 Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. Defendant ADMITS that the press conference referenced in 21 Paragraph 72 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint can be accessed at the URL referenced in footnote 38 of 22 Plaintiffs’ Complaint 23 73. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT - 11 2:20-CV-00887 RAJ Peter S. Holmes Seattle City Attorney 701 5th Avenue, Suite 2050 Seattle, WA 98104-7095 (206) 684-8200 Case 2:20-cv-00887-RAJ Document 43 Filed 06/30/20 Page 12 of 22 1 Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. Defendant ADMITS that the press conference referenced 2 in Paragraph 73 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint can be accessed at the URL referenced in footnote 39 of 3 Plaintiffs’ Complaint 4 74. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this 5 Paragraph as phrased. To the extent a response is required, Defendant ADMITS that the article 6 referenced in footnote 40 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint exists. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 75. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 76. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 77. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 78. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 15 2. Abie Ekenezar 16 79. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 80. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 81. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 82. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT - 12 2:20-CV-00887 RAJ Peter S. Holmes Seattle City Attorney 701 5th Avenue, Suite 2050 Seattle, WA 98104-7095 (206) 684-8200 Case 2:20-cv-00887-RAJ Document 43 Filed 06/30/20 Page 13 of 22 1 83. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this 2 Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. Defendant ADMITS that on May 30, 2020, SPD used 3 crowd management tools. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 84. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 85. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 86. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 87. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 88. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 89. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 90. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 18 3. Sharon Sakamoto 19 91. 20 21 22 23 Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 92. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 93. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT - 13 2:20-CV-00887 RAJ Peter S. Holmes Seattle City Attorney 701 5th Avenue, Suite 2050 Seattle, WA 98104-7095 (206) 684-8200 Case 2:20-cv-00887-RAJ Document 43 Filed 06/30/20 Page 14 of 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 94. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 95. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 96. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this 7 Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 8 4. Alexander Woldeab 9 97. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 98. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 99. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 100. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 101. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 102. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 103. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 104. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT - 14 2:20-CV-00887 RAJ Peter S. Holmes Seattle City Attorney 701 5th Avenue, Suite 2050 Seattle, WA 98104-7095 (206) 684-8200 Case 2:20-cv-00887-RAJ Document 43 Filed 06/30/20 Page 15 of 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 105. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 106. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 107. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 8 5. Muraco Kyashna-tochá 9 108. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 109. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 110. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 111. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 112. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 113. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 114. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 6. Alexandra Chen DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT - 15 2:20-CV-00887 RAJ Peter S. Holmes Seattle City Attorney 701 5th Avenue, Suite 2050 Seattle, WA 98104-7095 (206) 684-8200 Case 2:20-cv-00887-RAJ Document 43 Filed 06/30/20 Page 16 of 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 115. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 116. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 117. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 118. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 119. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 120. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 121. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 122. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 123. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 124. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 125. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 126. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT - 16 2:20-CV-00887 RAJ Peter S. Holmes Seattle City Attorney 701 5th Avenue, Suite 2050 Seattle, WA 98104-7095 (206) 684-8200 Case 2:20-cv-00887-RAJ Document 43 Filed 06/30/20 Page 17 of 22 1 Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 2 7. Nathalie Graham 3 127. 4 5 Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. 128. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this 6 Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 128 seek to 7 paraphrase or characterize the contents of a written document, the document speaks for itself and 8 Defendant denies the allegations to the extent that they are inconsistent with that document. 9 129. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this 10 Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 129 seek to 11 paraphrase or characterize the contents of a written document, the document speaks for itself and 12 Defendant denies the allegations to the extent that they are inconsistent with that document. 13 130. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this 14 Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 130 seek to 15 paraphrase or characterize the contents of a written document, the document speaks for itself and 16 Defendant denies the allegations to the extent that they are inconsistent with that document. 17 131. Defendant lacks sufficient information to admit or deny the allegations in this 18 Paragraph and therefore DENIES them. To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 131 seek to 19 paraphrase or characterize the contents of a written document, the document speaks for itself and 20 Defendant denies the allegations to the extent that they are inconsistent with that document. 21 E. The City’s Policy, Practice, and Custom 22 132. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph. 23 133. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph as phrased. DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT - 17 2:20-CV-00887 RAJ Peter S. Holmes Seattle City Attorney 701 5th Avenue, Suite 2050 Seattle, WA 98104-7095 (206) 684-8200 Case 2:20-cv-00887-RAJ Document 43 Filed 06/30/20 Page 18 of 22 1 134. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph. 2 135. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph as phrased. 3 136. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph as phrased. 4 137. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph. 5 138. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph as phrased. 6 139. This Paragraph states legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the 7 extent a response is required, Defendant ADMITS that the Seattle Times article referenced in 8 footnote 41 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint can be found at the URL referenced in footnote 41 of 9 Plaintiffs’ Complaint. To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 139 seek to paraphrase or 10 characterize the contents of a written document, the document speaks for itself and Defendant 11 denies the allegations to the extent that they are inconsistent with that document V. 12 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the First Amendment 13 14 140. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph. 15 141. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph. 16 142. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph. 17 143. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph. 18 144. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph. 19 145. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph. VI. 20 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of the Fourth Amendment 21 22 146. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph. 23 147. Defendant DENIES this Paragraph. DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT - 18 2:20-CV-00887 RAJ Peter S. Holmes Seattle City Attorney 701 5th Avenue, Suite 2050 Seattle, WA 98104-7095 (206) 684-8200 Case 2:20-cv-00887-RAJ Document 43 Filed 06/30/20 Page 19 of 22 VII. 1 2 3 148. This Paragraph states a prayer for relief, and therefore no answer is required. To the extent an answer is required, Defendant DENIES That Plaintiffs are entitled to relief. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 4 5 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 1. Defendant reserves the right to amend this Answer to assert additional affirmative defenses, 6 counterclaims or cross claims as may be appropriate based upon future discovery. Nothing 7 contained in this Answer should be construed as a waiver of any such additional defenses. 8 2. Some Plaintiffs lack standing to bring this action. 9 3. The City of Seattle cannot be held liable on a respondeat superior basis for Plaintiffs’ 10 11 12 claimed causes of action. 4. Plaintiffs are not entitled to declaratory relief. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that the Complaint be dismissed with 13 prejudice, that it be awarded costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees herein, and that it be granted such 14 other and further relief as the Court finds just and equitable. 15 16 DATED this 30th day of June, 2020. PETER S. HOLMES Seattle City Attorney 17 18 19 20 21 22 By: s/ Ghazal Sharifi Ghazal Sharifi, WSBA# 47750 Assistant City Attorney E-mail: Ghazal.Sharifi@seattle.gov Seattle City Attorney’s Office 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2050 Seattle, WA 98104 Phone: (206) 684-8200 Attorney for Defendant City of Seattle 23 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT - 19 2:20-CV-00887 RAJ Peter S. Holmes Seattle City Attorney 701 5th Avenue, Suite 2050 Seattle, WA 98104-7095 (206) 684-8200 Case 2:20-cv-00887-RAJ Document 43 Filed 06/30/20 Page 20 of 22 1 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 30, 2020 I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Breanne Mary Schuster ACLU of Washington 901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630 P.O. Box 2728 Seattle, WA 98111 (206) 624-2184 [Attorneys for Plaintiffs] John B. Midgley ACLU of Washington 901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630 P.O. Box 2728 Seattle, WA 98111 (206) 624-2184 [Attorneys for Plaintiffs] Lisa Nowlin ACLU of Washington 901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630 P.O. Box 2728 Seattle, WA 98111 (206) 623-1900 [Attorneys for Plaintiffs] Molly Tack-Hooper ACLU of Washington 901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630 P.O. Box 2728 Seattle, WA 98111 (206) 624-2184 [Attorneys for Plaintiffs] Nancy Lynn Talner ACLU of Washington 901 Fifth Avenue, Suite 630 P.O. Box 2728 Seattle, WA 98111 (206) 682-2184 [Attorneys for Plaintiffs] Carolyn S. Gilbert ( x ) Via Email bschuster@aclu-wa.org ( x ) Via Email jmidgley@aclu-wa.org ( x ) Via Email lnowlin@aclu-wa.org ( x ) Via Email mtackhooper@aclu-wa.org ( x ) Via Email talner@aclu-wa.org ( x ) Via Email DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT - 20 2:20-CV-00887 RAJ Peter S. Holmes Seattle City Attorney 701 5th Avenue, Suite 2050 Seattle, WA 98104-7095 (206) 684-8200 Case 2:20-cv-00887-RAJ Document 43 Filed 06/30/20 Page 21 of 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PERKINS COIE 1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 (206) 359-3279 [Attorneys for Plaintiffs] Paige L. Whidbee PERKINS COIE 1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 (206) 359-3629 [Attorneys for Plaintiffs] Heath L. Hyatt PERKINS COIE 1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 (206) 359-8000 [Attorneys for Plaintiffs] Joseph M. McMillan PERKINS COIE 1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 (206) 583-8888 [Attorneys for Plaintiffs] Nitika Arora PERKINS COIE 1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 (206) 359-3267 [Attorneys for Plaintiffs] David A. Perez PERKINS COIE 1201 3rd Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 (206) 359-6767 [Attorneys for Plaintiffs] Robert Seungchal Chang Ronald A. Peterson Law Clinic Seattle University School of Law 1112 E. Columbia Street Seattle, WA 98122 carolyngilbert@perkinscoie.com ( x ) Via Email pwhidbee@perkinscoie.com ( x ) Via Email hhyatt@perkinscoie.com ( x ) Via Email JMcMillan@perkinscoie.com ( x ) Via Email NArora@perkinscoie.com ( x ) Via Email DPerez@perkinscoie.com ( x ) Via Email changro@seattleu.edu DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT - 21 2:20-CV-00887 RAJ Peter S. Holmes Seattle City Attorney 701 5th Avenue, Suite 2050 Seattle, WA 98104-7095 (206) 684-8200 Case 2:20-cv-00887-RAJ Document 43 Filed 06/30/20 Page 22 of 22 1 (206) 398-4025 2 [Attorneys for Plaintiffs] 3 4 s/ Jennifer Litfin___________________________________ Jennifer Litfin, Legal Assistant 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 DEFENDANT’S ANSWER AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT - 22 2:20-CV-00887 RAJ Peter S. Holmes Seattle City Attorney 701 5th Avenue, Suite 2050 Seattle, WA 98104-7095 (206) 684-8200