(a) Form of Complaint
Complaints filed pursuant to the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, by or on behalf of prisoners,
shall be typewritten or legibly handwritten, and signed by each plaintiff unless presented by an
attorney. Such complaints shall be on the forms supplied by the court or, if a plaintiff is
represented by an attorney, must contain all of the information requested in the form.
(b) Forma Pauperis
See LCR 3.
(c) Place of Filing
See LCR 3(d).
(d) File Original Complaint; No Copies Required
Plaintiff shall send to the clerk an original complaint form for filing; additional copies are not
required. The complaint shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee or an application to
proceed in forma pauperis. The Fee Schedule and form templates are available on the court’s
website (www.wawd.uscourts.gov).
Civil Rules
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
, )
)
Petitioner, )
) Case No.
v. )
) APPLICATION FOR
, ) WRIT OF HABEAS
Superintendent of Washington ) CORPUS; APPLICA-
State Penitentiary, ) TION FOR APPOINT-
) MENT OF COUNSEL;
Respondent. ) REQUEST FOR STAY
) OF EXECUTION
My name is . I am a prisoner in state custody under
sentence of death. I was convicted and sentenced in the County Superior Court.
My death sentence was affirmed by the Washington Supreme Court on , 20 . My
scheduled execution date is , 20 .
I was tried and I am being held in violation of my federal constitutional rights, including
the following:
(1) ;
(2) ;
(3) ;
(Include at least one federal ground for relief)
The attorney representing me in my most recent state court proceedings in connection
with my conviction and death sentence has informed me that he/she is unable to represent me in
federal habeas corpus proceedings. I am indigent and have substantially no assets. I hereby
request that the court appoint an attorney to represent me in my petition for writ of habeas corpus
in this court.
Civil Rules
I also request that the court stay my execution at this time until counsel has been
appointed and permit me leave to amend this petition after counsel has had opportunity to assist
me. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
DATED:
Signature of Prisoner
CIVIL RULES
APPENDIX A. DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
See LCR 10(e)(1)
The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
4 AT SEATTLE
5 )
ABC CORPORATION, ) No. C12-1234RSL
6 )
7 Plaintiff, )
v. ) DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION
8 ) FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
XYZ COMPANY, INC., )
9 ) NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:
Defendant. ) [insert date]
)
12
[Insert Text]
14
16
18
20
22
24
DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION Law Firm of Lawyers
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (C12-1234RSL) 10,000 Fifth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104
(206) 555-5555
CIVIL RULES
APPENDIX B. SUBMISSION REGARDING REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
See LCR 37
The Honorable Robert S. Lasnik
3
5
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
7 AT SEATTLE
)
9 JONES ACTOR, ) No. C01-9999RSL
)
10 Plaintiff, )
v. ) LCR 37 SUBMISSION REGARDING
) REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
12 BIG ROSE FLOWER COMPANY, ) NO. 17
) NOTE ON MOTION CALENDAR:
13 Defendant. ) [insert date]
)
15 I. MOVING PARTY'S INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
16 Defendant Big Rose Flower Company is the moving party for this submission. Plaintiff Jones
17 Actor is seeking more than $2.5 million in damages, claiming that at the time he purchased Big
Rose stock, Big Rose allegedly failed to disclose that the property owned by Big Rose for
growing flowers would be unable to produce a suitable crop in 2014. It is claimed that these
alleged misstatements violated Section 10(b) of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act and the
22 Washington Securities Act.
24
DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION Law Firm of Lawyers
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (C12-1234RSL) 10,000 Fifth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104
(206) 555-5555
These allegations are untrue. Further, Actor is a director of a company that is also in the flower
business, Fleurs 'R' Nous Company, and he was undoubtedly aware of the problems caused by
the 2013 drought, which affected all flower producing companies in the Northwest.
2 II. RESPONDING PARTY'S STATEMENT
3 Jones Actor purchased nearly $3 million of stock in Big Rose--stock that is worth less than
4 $500,000 today. He purchased this substantial amount of stock because of glowing reports from
Big Rose regarding its prospects for future profits.
However, things were not as rosy as they seemed. All of Big Rose's land holdings used to
8 produce flowers were not only severely parched by the 2013 drought, but also contaminated with
9 chemicals because of a mistake in choosing fertilizers. Big Rose knew that it was unlikely that
10 these chemicals could be removed from the soil in time to produce a profitable crop for 2014.
When this information was finally disclosed to the public, Big Rose stock plummeted in value.
III. DISPUTED DISCOVERY REQUESTS
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 17: Please produce all income tax returns for 2000 through
15 2014 for the Fleurs 'R' Nous Company.
16 RESPONSE: Actor objects to this request on the grounds that it calls for information this is both
17 not relevant to any parties claim or defense and not proportional to the needs of the case. This
litigation involves claims that Big Rose Flower Company misled investors about its financial
profits by omitting information about its property and crops. This request seeks information
21 about the income taxes of a business that is not even a party to the dispute. Discovery of Fleurs
22 ‘R’ Nous Company’s tax returns is not important to resolving the issues in dispute. Further, the
23 information sought is confidential and no compelling reason justifies its disclosure. In addition
the request is also overbroad and unduly burdensome because it sees information spanning 15
DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION Law Firm of Lawyers
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (C12-1234RSL) 10,000 Fifth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104
(206) 555-5555
1 years. The claims at issue pertain to at most only a two-year period. For these reasons, all
requested tax returns from non-party Fleurs ‘R’ Nous company are being withheld.
Moving Party's Argument
Actor claims that he was deceived by the alleged omissions of information from Big Rose's
6 public statements. To defend against this claim, Big Rose will show that Actor is a sophisticated
7 individual, who was aware of the risks in the flower business and who also had information
obtained by Fleurs 'R' Nous regarding the problems that Big Rose was having with its land at the
time he was buying Big Rose stock. Defendants in security cases are properly allowed to obtain
tax returns, because they help show the plaintiff's degree of sophistication and understanding of
12 the risks of investment. Davis v. Big Co., 123 F.3d 777, 788 (9th Cir. 1999). Further, the tax
13 return may identify individuals with knowledge of Actor's understanding of the industry.
14 Responding Party's Response
While it is true that tax returns may be produced to show the degree of sophistication of a
securities plaintiff, the tax returns sought here are not Actor's personal tax returns, but rather the
18 tax returns for a company in which he is a director and part owner. That company is not a party
19 to these proceedings. Non-parties should not be forced to produce their tax returns absent very
20 compelling reasons. Westminster v. Abbey, 867 F.3d 309, 312 (9th Cir. 1999). No compelling
reasons have been presented. Fleurs 'R' Nous is not a publicly traded company, and its financial
and other information is maintained as confidential. It is a competitor of Big Rose, and
disclosure of this information through discovery could be harmful. Additionally, the request is
DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION Law Firm of Lawyers
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (C12-1234RSL) 10,000 Fifth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104
(206) 555-5555
1 overbroad and unduly burdensome. Fiften years of tax returns are unnecessary and not
2 proportional to the needs of the case when the claims at issue pertain only to a two-year period.
3 Moving Party's Reply
Actor's supposed concern about Fleurs 'R' Nous' confidential information can be addressed
through a protective order. Big Rose will agree not to disclose this information to persons other
7 than counsel and experts absent agreement of the parties or further order of the court. While
8 Fleurs 'R' Nous is not a party, its tax returns may contain information about money spent
9 addressing the drought problem that was common to several floral companies. Thus, the
information is both relevant and proportional to the needs of the case.
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION Law Firm of Lawyers
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (C12-1234RSL) 10,000 Fifth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98104
(206) 555-5555
CERTIFICATION
I certify that the full response by the responding party has been included in this submission, and
2 that prior to making this submission the parties conferred to attempt to resolve this discovery
3 dispute in accordance with LCR 37(a).
4 DATED:
6 Ira Just (WSBA #1234) Attorneys for Big Rose Company Moving Party
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
