Jeff Parks - Deposition Transcript (Federal)

Jeffrey Parks, March 10, 2014Paul Murphy v. Whatcom County

3206 Wetmore, Suite 12, Everett, WA 98201BMA Court Reporters 425-252-7277

Page 1

UNITED STATES OF DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

---------------------------------------------------------------

PAUL MURPHY, together with his ) marital community, ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) NO. 2:13-CV-00727 ) WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON, a ) government entity; WHATCOM COUNTY ) SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; WILLIAM J. ) ELFO, together with his marital ) community, ) Defendants. ) ---------------------------------------------------------------

DEPOSITION UPON ORAL EXAMINATION OF JEFF PARKS

---------------------------------------------------------------

1:20PM - 2:30PM March 10TH, 2014 Whatcom County Courthouse 311 Grand Avenue Bellingham, Washington 98225

Reported by Kristen M. Uhlig Certified Court Reporter, CCR, CSR Washington CCR #1934



Page 2

1 A P P E A R A N C E S

2

3 FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:Robert Butler & Emily Beschen

4 Law Offices of Robert Butler103 East Holly Street Suite 512

5 Bellingham, Washington 98225360.734.3448

6

7 FOR THE DEFENDANTS WHATCOM COUNTY & SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT & ELFODale Kamerrer

8 Law Lyman Daniel Kamerrer Bogdanovich2674 RW Johnson Blvd SW

9 Tumwater, Washington 98512360.754.3480

10

11 FOR WHATCOM COUNTY:Elizabeth Gallery

12 Whatcom County Prosecutor's Office311 Grand Avenue

13 Bellingham, Washington 98225

14ALSO PRESENT:

15 William ElfoTara Adrian-Stavik

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



Page 3

1 I N D E X

2 EXAMINATION: PAGE

3 BY MR. BUTLER................................................4

4 BY MR. KAMERRER.............................................41

5 BY MR. BUTLER...............................................42

6

7 EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION PAGE

8 6....Whatcom County Sheriff's 8/14/08 Memo...................23

9 7....Whatcom County Sheriff's 5/12/11 Memo...................26

10 8....E-mail, November 9, 2011 - From J. Parks to S. Cooley...28

11 9....E-mail, April 17, 2012 - From S. Cooley to J. Parks.....29

12 10...E-mail, April 20, 2012 - From J. Parks..................30

13 11...Advice of Administrative Investigation, 3/13/2012.......31

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



Page 4

1 JEFFREY PARKS,

2 having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness herein and

3 was examined and testified as follows:

4

5 DIRECT EXAMINATION

6

7 BY MR. BUTLER:

8 Q Good afternoon, would you please state your name and spell it

9 for the record?

10 A It's Jeffrey Parks, P-A-R-K-S.

11 Q Where are you employed?

12 A Whatcom County Sheriff's Office.

13 Q How long have you been so employed?

14 A Thirty-one years.

15 Q When you started 31 years ago, what was your rank?

16 A Deputy.

17 Q Have you been promoted in rank in your 31 years?

18 A I have.

19 Q And can you briefly give me your promotion schedule?

20 A From June of 1982 until -- I'm trying to -- I don't remember

21 the month off the top of my head -- 1989 was a deputy sheriff,

22 and then promoted in 1989 to sergeant.

23 And from 1989 to 1995, I believe, probably around June

24 of '95, served as a sergeant and then promoted to lieutenant.

25 And from '95 until 2001, served as a lieutenant. And in 2001,



Page 5

1 promoted to chief deputy.

2 In 2001 until 2009, served as a chief deputy at which

3 point I was promoted to undersheriff, and from '09 until the

4 present, that's my title.

5 Q Okay. And briefly describe the job duties of the chief. What

6 does -- when you worked 2001 to 2009, what were your functions?

7 A Actually, I held a chief's position in both the -- I was a

8 chief civil deputy, which has its own unique job assignment and

9 requirements. And then transferred from there to the chief

10 criminal deputy, which has its own unique requirements as well.

11 Basically, each chief's position oversees what we now call a

12 bureau.

13 Q Okay. Were you chief of both ever at the same time or were you

14 chief of civil separate and unique from chief of criminal?

15 A The later.

16 Q Which did you do first, if you could break up your years of '01

17 to '09, between civil and criminal?

18 A The chief civil deputy was my initial assignment in, again, I

19 believe that it was 2001. And that basically oversees the

20 civil division and then the records and ID section. So most of

21 the support services for the sheriff's office.

22 The chief civil deputy ensures all of the process that

23 comes into our office, whether it is the court orders or

24 attorney papers, summons and complaints, that those are out for

25 service. We seize or bring property back pursuant to court



Page 6

1 orders. So that was in overseeing the civil bureau and the

2 records bureau.

3 So in transferring over to the chief criminal deputy,

4 that's oversees -- basically oversees our investigations, our

5 criminal investigations.

6 Q When did you make that change?

7 A That would have been in -- if I misspoke, I'm thinking back on

8 the dates now. In two-thousand and -- I believe that it was in

9 2001 that I was moved over to the chief criminal deputy. So

10 from '95 to -- I'm missing a year in there thinking about it

11 without having it in front of me.

12 Q Let me pair it back --

13 A Going back to chief civil deputy, that one I'm a little bit --

14 when I first got promoted into that, I'm a little bit -- I

15 would have to go back and look at my personnel record.

16 Q Okay. Here's what I have. From '82 to '89, you were a deputy.

17 A Right.

18 Q From '89 to '95, you were a sergeant. From '95 to '01, you

19 were a lieutenant. From '01 to '09, you were undersheriff -- I

20 mean, you were chief, and that was what I was asking you to

21 break out was the '01 to '09 between criminal and civil.

22 A Right. Actually, I've got the dates just a little bit wrong in

23 there because some of those -- one of those was based on a

24 retirement.

25 Q Okay.



Page 7

1 A So I'm trying to remember when the one person left, so I'm a

2 little fuzzy on the dates. But when I got promoted from

3 lieutenant to chief, it was --

4 Q Civil?

5 A Yeah. The chief civil deputy. I'm sorry. I'm trying to think

6 of the exact year.

7 Q Don't worry about it.

8 A In 2002, I know that I was the -- well, I came -- I was -- I

9 would have to go look at those exact year break downs. I'm

10 sorry. Just right in there, there's just the chief civil -- I

11 was probably in there a year or two.

12 Q Okay.

13 A I was the chief criminal deputy much longer than the chief

14 civil deputy, so I can clarify that by looking at the records.

15 Q No. I was just trying to get the breakdown of the job duties.

16 The role of undersheriff, what was the job function of

17 undersheriff --

18 A The undersheriff --

19 Q -- your next promotion?

20 A Right. The undersheriff then supervises the bureau chiefs. So

21 we basically have bureau chiefs over the jail as well, over

22 civil and support, over law enforcement and investigations and

23 then also our division of emergency management, which serves on

24 par as somewhat similar to a regular bureau chief. Although,

25 he has a much smaller span of control. He has fewer employees



Page 8

1 over there. But all of those divisions and bureaus report to

2 me and then I report to the sheriff.

3 Q You became that in '09?

4 A In November of 2009.

5 Q The predecessor to that was Carey James?

6 A That's right.

7 Q All right.

8 A I apologize for the confusion there.

9 Q No. It's --

10 A A couple of years in there, I'm not right off the top of my

11 head, certain on.

12 Q So in your capacity as undersheriff, what's your contact with

13 the rank and file, the deputies?

14 A It's kind of incidental. I try to -- if I see them, you know,

15 try to interact and see how things are going. But it's not a

16 daily supervisory role of the line staff.

17 Q And in your role as the undersheriff, would it be fair to say

18 that it's more of an office than it is an active investigative

19 function?

20 A Right. A lot of what I do relates to the budget.

21 Q Okay.

22 A And grants, things like that.

23 Q In your capacity as chief, how engaged is the chief with what

24 we would have referred to as rank and file?

25 A More the lieutenants and sergeants.



Page 9

1 Q Okay.

2 A But more so -- there would be more contact with the rank and

3 file, but more so with managers and supervisors.

4 Q Okay. Credibility within the department is what I would like

5 to talk to you about now. I'm asking for your opinion, not

6 speaking on behalf of the agency, but Jeff Parks. What does

7 Jeff Parks think about the credibility of -- I'm going to name

8 some of the individuals in the department.

9 What I'm referring to with that is your opinion of their

10 candor, their truthfulness in their performance of their job.

11 Okay?

12 A Mm-hm.

13 Q What's your opinion of Flynn?

14 MR. KAMERRER: I'm going to insert an objection that

15 it's irrelevant and calls for speculation. Nevertheless, in a

16 deposition, you can answer the question.

17 Q (By Mr. Butler) Right.

18 A Larry Flynn?

19 Q Yeah.

20 A I believe that he's credible.

21 Q Okay. Any incidents, issues that you've had experience with

22 him where you have doubted his truthfulness?

23 A No.

24 Q How about Nyhus? I apologize up front for not giving rank and

25 first name, because I would probably mess those up.



Page 10

1 A Okay.

2 Q So if there's a person's name that you don't recognize, I'll

3 dig it out, but for notes purposes, I'm just going with last

4 names.

5 Nyhus, your opinion of his credibility?

6 A Jason Nyhus?

7 Q Yes.

8 MR. KAMERRER: Same objection. Go ahead.

9 THE WITNESS: My opinion is that Jason has some

10 challenges with his communication style that sometimes can come

11 off not necessarily as being not a credible -- if you say in

12 our official capacity, obviously, that relates to being a

13 credible witness or writing accurate reports.

14 But at times, in my opinion, there are some

15 communication issues with understanding exactly what Jason is

16 trying to get to at times. But I certainly wouldn't say that

17 he is not a credible witness in terms of his capacity as a

18 deputy sheriff.

19 Q (By Mr. Butler) So if he reported something to you, you would

20 believe what he was reporting to you?

21 A I would evaluate it to make sure that it's something that he

22 knew firsthand.

23 Q Okay. If it were firsthand, you wouldn't doubt his word?

24 A Not unless I had a reason to.

25 Q Okay. Have you ever had reason to doubt his word when you



Page 11

1 checked?

2 A Again, I would refer to his -- his communication style.

3 Sometimes you have to nail him down to find out if, in fact,

4 he's sure or has firsthand knowledge about what he's talking

5 about.

6 If he tells me that he actually saw something, I

7 wouldn't have a reason to not take that on face value and

8 believe that he believes what he's telling.

9 Q Okay. How about Jeremy Freeman?

10 A Again, in his official capacity, I don't have any firsthand

11 knowledge to say that he's not credible. At times, there are

12 some communication issues that, again, I have an opinion about

13 his communication style. Sometimes there's been some

14 difficulty. But I don't have any reason to believe that he

15 would not be a credible witness.

16 Q Taddonio?

17 A I don't have any issues with his -- from what I know about his

18 performance and in his official capacity, I don't have any

19 issues.

20 Q VanderVeen?

21 A I would think the same as far as his official capacity as a

22 witness and a deputy. I don't have any particular issues with

23 his credibility.

24 Q Have you ever had issue with his credibility in the work --

25 have you ever questioned his credibility in the workplace?



Page 12

1 A Not directly. I know that we had some issues with a court case

2 where that became an issue, but I don't have any direct

3 knowledge one way or another.

4 Q Did you do any investigation into it?

5 A I did not personally.

6 Q Did you review any investigations into it to make a

7 determination with regard to his credibility?

8 A I believe that I had some discussions with our counsel as to

9 what they were finding.

10 Q Which counsel was that?

11 A Randy Watts.

12 Q Anybody else?

13 A I may have, but I don't recall.

14 Q So did you think that the jury got it wrong then with regard to

15 Freeman and VanderVeen?

16 A I don't have an opinion either way with the jury. I wasn't

17 there. I don't even know what they heard.

18 Q Okay. Internally in the department, was that the discussion

19 that the jury got it wrong?

20 A It was an issue due to the findings. I mean the court case,

21 obviously, created some issues within the agency.

22 Q Roff?

23 A I have no issues with his credibility at all.

24 Q Harris?

25 A Again, with Steve Harris, it would be more my opinion on his



Page 13

1 communication style and what he chooses to do with information,

2 but nothing -- I've had dealings with Steve Roff on two

3 different levels. One, he was obviously --

4 Q Steve Harris?

5 A I'm sorry. Steve Harris. He was obviously the guild

6 president. And so some of those discussions, you know, occur

7 with him from a labor relations standpoint or guild standpoint.

8 So sometimes, those would have to be taken with a grain of

9 salt.

10 As far as his official capacity, reporting as a deputy

11 sheriff, there's nothing that I can point to that would say

12 that he was not credible.

13 Q Steve Cooley?

14 A I have no issues with his credibility.

15 Q Have you ever had reason to wonder or question?

16 A His credibility?

17 Q Yes.

18 A No.

19 MR. KAMERRER: Objection, vague.

20 THE WITNESS: No.

21 Q (By Mr. Butler) How about in his personal life?

22 MR. KAMERRER: Objection.

23 Q (By Mr. Butler) As opposed to work?

24 MR. KAMERRER: Calls for speculation as to relevance.

25 THE WITNESS: No. We don't socialize. I don't -- I



Page 14

1 really don't know much about his personal life.

2 MR. KAMERRER: Let me get my objection on the

3 record --

4 THE WITNESS: Sorry.

5 MR. KAMERRER: -- before you start talking.

6 THE WITNESS: Sorry. Sorry.

7 MR. KAMERRER: If not, she'll hit you on the hand.

8 THE WITNESS: I know.

9 Q (By Mr. Butler) Mede, with regard to his credibility?

10 A I have no issues with his credibility.

11 Q Have you ever had reason to wonder?

12 MR. KAMERRER: Objection. Vague, calls for

13 speculation.

14 Q (By Mr. Butler) Have you ever had questions to wonder about

15 his credibility?

16 MR. KAMERRER: Same objection.

17 THE WITNESS: I don't know what you mean by wonder.

18 Q (By Mr. Butler) Has his credibility been challenged? Has his

19 credibility been raised to you in the official capacity as he

20 has a credibility issue --

21 A Yes.

22 Q -- and you have had to think about that?

23 A Right. I had to review an incident where there was differing

24 views or differing recollections on what happened in an

25 incident.



Page 15

1 Q Mm-hm.

2 A But nothing came forward to me that would give me reason to

3 believe that he was not truthful or credible.

4 Q Did you ever participate in any meetings or discussions where

5 there was conversation about whether or not Mede should receive

6 a Brady letter?

7 A Right. There was a review. There was a preliminary inquiry

8 that was reported that I reviewed and issued a report on that

9 situation. And that was central to -- that issue was central

10 to what we were reviewing. We interviewed a number of -- I did

11 not, but the chief deputy at the time interviewed a number of

12 deputies regarding that.

13 Q Okay. Since two-thousand and roughly one or two when you

14 became the chief criminal deputy, and then through your

15 undersheriff years, how many deputies have been questioned with

16 regards to a Brady issue? Just as you referenced with regard

17 to Mede. How many of those situations have come up in your

18 experience in the last 12 years?


20 THE WITNESS: In the last 12 years?

21 Q (By Mr. Butler) Yeah.

22 A So back to specifically regarding Brady or just specifically

23 regarding just credibility?

24 Q Let's go both. Let's go with credibility first and then we'll

25 narrow it to Brady.



Page 16

1 A There have been a few. I don't know if I can enumerate them,

2 but there's been a few instances of either alleged misconduct

3 or concerns that we have looked into that would center around

4 credibility.

5 Q Okay. Narrowing that to where you've been a part of a Brady

6 discussion as to whether or not the deputy or a member of the

7 sheriff's department should be Brady'ed, can you identify

8 those? We know Murphy got one. We know that Mede was

9 investigated for one. Anybody else?

10 A Specifically for Brady -- there might have been one or two, but

11 I just can't come up with a specific name.

12 Q Are you aware of anybody receiving a Brady letter?

13 A No. Well, I -- Mr. Murphy obviously has and that's -- that's

14 the first one that I was specifically involved in that I

15 recall.

16 Q Can you describe for me the internal process with regards to

17 Brady policy-wise from your experience in the sheriff's

18 department for the last 31 years?

19 A Our practice has been to include that information, whether it

20 be the sole source of the complaint or the concern or if it's

21 intwined with the complaint or the concern into the

22 administrative investigation.

23 It is evaluated up, presented up to the sheriff, and

24 from our department or office, it is then evaluated on whether

25 that -- we feel that it meets criteria or we get legal review



Page 17

1 if that meets the criteria where that should be presented to

2 the prosecutor.

3 Q Do you know who makes the decision as to whether it gets

4 reviewed by the prosecutor?

5 A Whether it goes outside of our office?

6 Q Yes.

7 A That would be the sheriff.

8 Q So from what you understand the policy of the sheriff's

9 department with regards to Brady, the gatekeeper, if you will,

10 of that information is the sheriff as to whether it gets

11 reviewed by the prosecutor's office. Is that what I

12 understood?

13 A For it to be referred outside of our agency, yes. Because he

14 is the person who reviews our administrative investigations,

15 our complaints, and ensures that they're complete and is a part

16 of that process. Then, of course, it would be referred out for

17 the prosecuting attorney's office.

18 Q And as undersheriff, are you included in that process?

19 A I am. I basically oversee that whole process and give the

20 final product -- deliver that to the sheriff. If there's

21 anything else he needs or anything else that comes up in the

22 investigation, then I'm tasked with seeing to it that it's

23 taken care of.

24 Q Since 2009 other than Murphy, have you given any investigations

25 to the sheriff to determine whether or not to seek outside



Page 18

1 counsel or to give it to the sheriff or prosecutor?

2 A A number. A number of them, yes.

3 Q Can you give me an example of one?

4 A Of a -- you're speaking of an administrative investigation or

5 what a lot of folks call an internal investigation?

6 Q Right. Where there's a Brady issue involved that you have

7 given to the sheriff.

8 A Probably one of the more recent ones would be Deputy Lann.

9 Q How long ago was that?

10 A It's been an ongoing series since going back for sure -- I

11 would have to check some of the dates, but 2009 or 2010. There

12 were a number of complaints there where we had stories that

13 didn't quite match up. Of course, there was -- there can be a

14 lot of different explanations for that at times.

15 So there were a couple of instances there where we were

16 looking very carefully to make sure that we were getting a

17 straight story and that we were getting truthful interviews.

18 Q Okay. Anybody else?

19 A One of the more recent ones involves a support employee, where

20 that employee resigned during the pendency of the

21 investigation. But we had reason to believe that that employee

22 was not being truthful in reporting activity to their

23 supervisor.

24 Q Who was that?

25 A Nicole Larsen.



Page 19

1 Q How long ago was that?

2 A Just within the last few months. There was another one around

3 1998, I believe. It was a lieutenant at the time. We had

4 another employee resign in lieu of what looked like the

5 investigation was not complete. However, in overseeing that

6 investigation, it was my opinion that she was not being

7 truthful in relationship to some equipment that was damaged on

8 duty.

9 Q Is there a policy that you're aware of that the sheriff's

10 department follows with regards to or training or policy

11 regarding Brady? In what qualifies as this should be a Brady

12 matter or not?

13 A Could you -- I lost you about halfway through the question.

14 Q Sure. I'm wondering -- and it's compound, so let me give you

15 the compound and then I'll break it.

16 What I'm looking for is if you're aware of any policy in

17 the department or any training that the department utilizes in

18 the area of Brady. So as to what should be a Brady issue and

19 what doesn't need to be a Brady issue with regards to a deputy.

20 So let me go back now and say, are you aware of any

21 policy that the sheriff's office maintains and is known as to

22 what qualifies as a Brady issue?

23 MR. KAMERRER: I'm going to insert an objection, calls

24 for speculation. It is a -- essentially a hypothetical

25 question and it's an inadequate hypothetical. Go ahead.



Page 20

1 THE WITNESS: It's a --

2 Q (By Mr. Butler) Just to be clear, I'm not asking a

3 hypothetical. I'm asking: Are you aware of any policy?

4 A We don't have a written specific policy on Brady.

5 Q Okay.

6 A We have a practice. And the command staff that are involved in

7 investigations are sensitive, obviously, to inaccurate

8 information or situations or scenarios that may revolve around

9 credibility or bias or information that should be disclosed

10 once we get it put together and reviewed. And, again, make the

11 determination and have it reviewed, if it's something that

12 should be provided to the prosecutor, so that information can

13 be appropriately handled by him.

14 Q Okay.

15 A As far as training, I believe that most of the command staff

16 has received training. I know that I have attended several

17 trainings on the requirements of Brady, whether it be

18 in-classroom training or webinars or written materials that we

19 have provided.

20 Q Can you give me an example of a training that you have

21 received, that the source of the training that you have

22 received was Brady?

23 A Written materials from either Washington State, such as the

24 Prosecutor's Association, I believe.

25 Q Okay.



Page 21

1 A There's materials -- I know that I'm fairly sure, I could be

2 wrong -- but I'm thinking off the top of my head through the

3 Criminal Justice Training. I know that it has come up in

4 internal investigations trainings that I have attended as long

5 ago as the late 90s. I'm guessing on the dates, but I know our

6 other command staff members have attended training where that

7 content has been provided.

8 Q Okay. With regard to practice, if a deputy prosecutor were to

9 call and ask about the credibility of an officer, would it just

10 go to Sheriff Elfo or would it go to you as the undersheriff?

11 If the deputy prosecutor had a question about Brady?

12 A They tend to call people directly, so I can't really speak as

13 to who they would call.

14 Q Okay. Have you ever received a call from a deputy prosecutor

15 regarding whether or not Brady would be appropriate for a

16 deputy?

17 A Their decision to consider them Brady?

18 Q Yeah. Whether a letter should go out to defense counsel that

19 this officer has been looked at for credibility issues?

20 A Not that I recall. I don't think that they've queried me back

21 for any reason to see if I thought that it should go forward,

22 if that's what you're asking me.

23 Q Are you -- that was that question. The next question is: Are

24 you aware of prosecutors calling or e-mailing the department,

25 inquiring about the credibility of a given deputy?



Page 22

1 A No. I can't think of -- I can't think of that coming in that

2 way from the prosecutor.

3 Q You don't remember Hulbert inquiring about Mede?

4 A He didn't inquire of me.

5 Q Were you aware that he inquired of the department?

6 A I don't know that. I don't know that for sure. I mean, his

7 name came up in the preliminary inquiry that we did, but I

8 didn't handle anything from him directly that I recall.

9 Q Do you recall -- and I apologize that I have drawn a blank on

10 the name -- the evidence room person that was driven home

11 because she was intoxicated on the job in the evidence room?

12 A Yes. Connie Meyer. (Phonetic)

13 Q Connie Meyer. Thank you. Are you aware that -- if anybody was

14 notified that the evidence room tech was intoxicated on the

15 job?

16 A I didn't handle that case. I don't know what was done on it

17 specifically.

18 Q Were you undersheriff at that time?

19 A No.

20 Q Were you chief criminal at that time?

21 A I believe so. I would have to go back and check to make sure,

22 but it wasn't -- I wasn't involved in it, so I don't think that

23 I would have been over that bureau. Had I been, I think that I

24 would have been involved.

25 Q Okay.



Page 23

1 (Marked Deposition Exhibit No. 6)

2 Q (By Mr. Butler) Showing you what's been marked as Exhibit 6,

3 this appears to me to be a memo drafted by you to Sheriff Elfo

4 and Undersheriff James in August of '08 regarding Deputy

5 Murphy. Do you see that?

6 A Mm-hm. Yes.

7 Q Do you recall drafting a memo about this?

8 A I do.

9 Q Pursuant to recent conversations, who do you recall having had

10 a recent conversation with?

11 A I believe that it was with other command staff members,

12 certainly with the sheriff. I don't remember if the

13 undersheriff was involved, most likely was, but I don't

14 remember specifically everyone who would be involved in that.

15 I'm addressing it to the two parties, so I'm assuming at the

16 time that I wrote it that that's what I had in mind.

17 Q Okay. That's what I'm wondering -- if you had a broader

18 audience with the use of our recent conversations.

19 A It might have. I don't recall. But since they -- I was

20 reporting to them that it was my chain of command, obviously,

21 I'm writing up to my chain of command in this memo.

22 Q Okay. The rest of that sentence goes on, "There is some

23 additional information that I should submit for your review and

24 consideration." Do you see that?

25 A Yes.



Page 24

1 Q Do you have any recollection as to why you felt that there

2 should be more submitted?

3 A I think that basically, this was to memorialize information

4 that we had discussed.

5 Q Okay. A part of the issue here had to do with his use of a

6 computer; correct?

7 A Right.

8 Q And his concern that there was a compromise in the department

9 and he had investigations that were sensitive and he didn't --

10 he was concerned about people seeing his work. In the third

11 paragraph it says that he was concerned about the tracking and

12 monitoring of his laptop from the IT people.

13 MR. KAMERRER: Do you want to just take the time and

14 read the whole thing before you answer the question?

15 THE WITNESS: That's what I'm trying to track here,

16 yes.

17 MR. KAMERRER: Why don't you do that?

18 THE WITNESS: Okay.

19 Q (By Mr. Butler) Do you recall the situation now?

20 A On the third paragraph that you were asking about, some kind of

21 -- I forget the word that you used. Some kind of a word of --

22 Q Let's actually go back now that you've read the whole thing.

23 MR. BUTLER: Thank you Counsel, I appreciate the

24 reminder. Take the time and read the document if you know.

25 Q (By Mr. Butler) Now that you've read the document, do you



Page 25

1 recall what was going on in the department at the time that

2 would cause you to submit additional information to this memo

3 for review and consideration?

4 A I'm not making any connection to something other than just the

5 overall concern about his behavior.

6 Q Okay. In the third paragraph, there's -- he's raising concern

7 in a conversation with you about surveillance of his computer

8 by the IT people.

9 A This information was coming to me from the detective unit -- I

10 can't specifically remember, I should say, members of the

11 detective unit about his suspicions, paranoia or whatever --

12 however you want to categorize it as being monitored by IT.

13 And some of the comments that the group was forwarding, kind of

14 voicing a concern about his behavior.

15 Q Okay. So the third paragraph, it starts with, "During Deputy

16 Murphy's," that's not personal knowledge to you from a

17 conversation with Murphy. That's a summary of what you got

18 from other people?

19 A Right.

20 Q Okay. Because the fourth paragraph, you use the, "I met with

21 him."

22 A I did.

23 Q So that's more personal knowledge.

24 A I specifically had a meeting with him on the fourth paragraph.

25 The paragraph preceding that was coming to me through the



Page 26

1 supervisory channels.

2 Q Okay. Thanks. And then if you turn the page, the second to

3 the last paragraph says, "In addition."

4 A Mm-hm. Yes.

5 Q Was there a website Whatcom Uncovered? When did you become

6 aware of the website Whatcom Uncovered?

7 A I don't recall exactly when. It was clearly up and running

8 when I went to it, one of the first times that I took a look at

9 it. Somebody told me about it, I don't remember who, but there

10 was quite a bit of discussion about it. I went there mainly

11 because this issue came up of the residents there and Deputy

12 Peterson and being in charge as the -- in the chief's position

13 that I was in at that time of having our resident deputies and

14 also our agreement and contract with Seattle City Light. That

15 situation became of particular concern for me.

16 Q Okay. How many times did you visit Whatcom Uncovered?

17 A I don't know.

18 Q Were you aware of anybody else in the sheriff's department that

19 had viewed Whatcom Uncovered?

20 A Not firsthand knowledge, but I assume that most of the command

21 staff had looked at what was being put out there.

22 Q Okay.


24 Q (By Mr. Butler) Showing you what's been marked as Exhibit No.

25 7, it's a memo that appears to be from you dated May 12, 2011



Page 27

1 to Chief Criminal Deputy Chadwick. Do you see that?

2 A Yes.

3 Q And do you recall writing this?

4 A Yes.

5 Q Can you tell me what was going on? What was going on that

6 would cause you to write this?

7 A I believe that -- without crosschecking the dates, but I

8 believe that this relates to an incident that he became

9 involved in while he was off duty in his personal vehicle and

10 in the company of, I think, at least one of his family members.

11 In addition, we had been warned by the guild that

12 members of the guild performing any investigative or on duty or

13 deputy sheriff's duties, as they stated in here, would likely

14 result...

15 And this is their language, so we were sensitive to

16 their concerns and warnings about investigations or official

17 actions on off duty time.

18 Q Do you remember any more specifics about the conduct?

19 A If it's the incident, if I'm correct, thinking off the top of

20 my head about what the incident relates to. This was something

21 that came through Planning & Development or that he contacted

22 Planning & Development and he initially called people out or

23 demanded to meet people after hours regarding a tip or

24 investigative information that he wanted to follow-up on right

25 away that had to be done on the weekend as I recall. And he



Page 28

1 didn't feel that it could wait until regular business hours.

2 Q Okay.



5 8, which is an e-mail reportedly from you, November 9, 2011 at

6 12:31 to Steve Cooley. The subject is, Murphy documents,

7 attached -- H & I drive search. Do you see that?

8 A Yes.

9 Q And then there's a number of attachments listed.

10 A Right.

11 Q Can you tell me what, "H & I drive search" is?

12 A On the county computer system, the way that it is set up for

13 the sheriff's office, your H drive would be synonymous to your

14 MyDocuments.

15 If you were doing drafts or you were putting together

16 whatever computer documents, that's your drive that's assigned

17 to you, and an I drive is a departmental shared drive.

18 Q Do you know why you did a search?

19 A I believe that I was requested to. I think that this was

20 probably -- again, I would have to go back and line the dates

21 up to find out what I was doing at that time -- a public

22 information request, but I'm not positive just looking at this.

23 Q Any reason why Steve Cooley couldn't have done the H&I drive

24 search and why you did it?

25 (Ms. Beschen Enters Deposition)



Page 29

1 A I think it's pretty much standard practice and I know that

2 Information Technology has had us do our own queries and

3 respond back just to what we found.

4 I don't know if he can log in. I don't think that he

5 can see my H drive without Information Technology going in and

6 changing all of the permissions. So they just have you do your

7 own search.

8 Q So this is a search of your H drive or Murphy's H drive?

9 A I think that it's of mine, the best that I can recall.


11 Q (By Mr. Butler) Showing you what's been marked as Exhibit 9,

12 it purports to be an e-mail that you received from Steve Cooley

13 on April 17th to you, regarding a draft response to guild

14 requests for AI-2012-022. Do you see that?

15 A Yes.

16 Q Do you recall this?

17 A Yes, I do.

18 Q So what do you recall about this?

19 A I believe that this is a draft of what was going to be sent to

20 the guild as far as the disposition of this concern, regarding

21 a posting.

22 Q And so the guild had requested the investigation? Is that what

23 you understood?

24 A That the guild requested it? No. I don't think that I'm

25 saying that.



Page 30

1 Q "I recommend you respond to the Guild's request for a copy."

2 A The guild, just by standard practice, always requests a copy of

3 any administrative investigation on their members once they're

4 complete. And, actually, we have to provide that by the

5 collective bargaining agreement. So I think that this response

6 is explaining why there wasn't a full investigative file to

7 send them since the matter was closed.

8 Q Was there an investigation done though?

9 A No. There was a review of what the posting was to determine if

10 an investigation needed to be done.



13 10, this is three days later. It's from you to Elfo, Nyhus,

14 Cooley and Roff requesting the same -- if you look back at No.

15 9, it is the same investigation; correct?

16 A Right.

17 Q So it says there that there was an investigation. Do you see

18 that?

19 A Yes. So if I can clarify?

20 Q Sure.

21 A It wasn't a full investigation. We basically were in a

22 situation where we had to comply with the requirements of the

23 collective bargaining agreement. Any time information comes

24 forward that has the potential to result in discipline, we have

25 a timeline where we're required to make an advisement to the



Page 31

1 subject of that investigation. Oftentimes, what happened is

2 that we needed further review on the subject at hand. In this

3 case, we had to start the timeline for an investigation, but no

4 full investigation was conducted.

5 Q How long does that take?

6 A How long does which --

7 Q What's the timeline? You give notice and then how long does it

8 take to do an investigation?

9 A Our standard timeline that we worked out with the guild and our

10 collective bargaining agreement in totality is 90 days. But

11 that includes notification early on. You have a 15 day window.

12 Typically, you have a 60 day allotment for the investigation

13 and then another period of time where we have to announce the

14 results and what action we contemplate. And make notice to the

15 guild and the member.

16 Q Okay.


18 Q (By Mr. Butler) Showing you what has been marked as

19 Exhibit 11. This is dated March 13th, 2012 and it's the

20 administration -- administrative investigative advisement from

21 Cooley to Murphy for the same investigation number. Do you see

22 that?

23 A Okay. I see that.

24 Q It's a multi-page document; but on the 14th, the second page,

25 there's a memo to you from Cooley regarding his public web



Page 32

1 postings. Do you see that?

2 A Yes, I do.

3 Q The first sentence there is: As previously directed by Sheriff

4 Elfo, I have been monitoring Murphy's public internet postings.

5 (As Read).

6 Do you see that?

7 A I do.

8 Q Were you aware of that?

9 A I was aware that he had been directed, yes.

10 Q Do you know for how long?

11 A I can't tell you off the top of my head.

12 Q Months; correct?

13 A I'm sorry?

14 Q It had been months?

15 A That's certainly within the scope of it. I couldn't tell you

16 exactly though.

17 Q And if you could go to the fourth page, there's an e-mail

18 attached there from Gibson to you on the 20th.

19 A Yes.

20 Q Do you recall that conversation?

21 A I do.

22 Q Tell me, where did that conversation take place? Was it on the

23 phone? In-person? His office? Your office?

24 A It could have been both. I think that we talked about it more

25 than once. I believe that we talked about it on the phone. I



Page 33

1 do have meetings with Dan Gibson when we have personnel matters

2 that are pending. It could have been any one of those. I know

3 that I talked to him at least on the phone.

4 Q It concludes that this particular entry would not be an

5 appropriate basis to pursue discipline. Do you see that?

6 A Yes, I do.

7 Q Would it be fair to say that from your recollection of the end

8 of '11, beginning of '12, that there was a number of issues

9 presented to Gibson? Can we discipline him for this? Can we

10 discipline him for this? And that's what he's referring to,

11 this particular one isn't appropriate for discipline?

12 A I would hate to try to put my interpretation on exactly what he

13 might have meant in that regard.

14 Q You're aware of more than one inquiry of, can we discipline him

15 for this; correct?

16 A We had more than one discussion in general terms, for sure.

17 About social media, it was becoming an issue of concern as it

18 is for most agencies, of social media postings and things that

19 are -- that may tend to impact the public trust and confidence

20 in public safety agencies.

21 So I know that we had a number of discussions and

22 seeking advice on how we should handle those. What is -- what

23 would constitute grounds for disciplinary action or an

24 investigation.

25 Q It was determined that it didn't violate any policy; correct?



Page 34

1 MR. KAMERRER: Well, I'm going to insert an objection,

2 calls for speculation.

3 Q (By Mr. Butler) If you would go to the last page of the

4 exhibit. The second to the last sentence. Elfo says that it

5 may not have violated policy.

6 A Well, I see that it says that it may not have.

7 Q Are you aware of any policy that says that it did violate?

8 A Well, I think earlier in this documentation, that the

9 appropriate sections of our rules and regulations, that if they

10 did apply in this circumstance, these were probably the ones

11 that we would be looking at.

12 Again, we would not issue a notice of investigation, A)

13 Without being under the timeline of the collective bargaining

14 agreement requirement to do so. And, B) Without some concern

15 that a violation of our rules and regulations or conduct has

16 occurred that would be subject to discipline.

17 Q You were aware that Murphy had a personal issue with Cooley;

18 correct?

19 A Yes.

20 Q Is it your opinion that with that animosity, if you will, that

21 conflict, it is appropriate to have Cooley doing these

22 investigations?

23 A I thought that it was entirely appropriate.

24 Q Okay. Mede testified that he didn't think that it would be

25 appropriate for himself to be involved because of his animosity



Page 35

1 with Murphy.

2 Do you disagree with Mede's assessment that his personal

3 conflict between a deputy and himself could cloud that

4 judgment, so he just wanted to stay away from that?

5 MR. KAMERRER: I want to insert an objection. It

6 calls for speculation and it's argumentive.

7 THE WITNESS: I would certainly take his opinion and

8 preference and his feeling about that matter into

9 consideration, but there's a vast difference between what we

10 would be asking Sergeant Mede to do and what we would be asking

11 Inspector Cooley to do.

12 Q (By Mr. Butler) Were you aware if Cooley asked to not do this

13 investigation into Murphy in the spring of 2012 because of the

14 conflict?

15 A Yes. I think, to his credit, he brought forward that point for

16 consideration, which I considered, and I know that the sheriff

17 gave due consideration to that point of view as well.

18 Q Was there a reason why Cooley, who had reservations -- if it's

19 a known conflict -- why Cooley had to be tasked with that? Was

20 there nobody else that could do it in the department?

21 A That's part of it in terms of a resource issue. Part of it is

22 his expertise and his knowledge and his track record of

23 conducting these investigations in an unbiased and a very

24 thorough manner. And coupled with the oversight that we have

25 put into the investigation, making sure that there were also



Page 36

1 other command staff members that were vetting and checking what

2 was done, just to obviously, because of the concern, to back

3 Steve up so that it wasn't just him at times when there should

4 have been someone else there just to verify. So we thought

5 that we could appropriately address any concerns that might

6 come up about that.

7 Q So you don't think that that compromised the investigative work

8 at all?

9 A I don't think that it did at all, no.

10 Q Would you agree with me that an investigator uses the

11 investigator's judgment in how they do an investigation?

12 A To a degree.

13 Q Okay. They choose the questions they ask?

14 A They do, but we see the interviews on the questions. We have

15 them trans -- recorded. That's one reason that the interviews

16 are recorded. We go over those and that's why we have a

17 vetting process for the investigation.

18 Q Okay. What about video? Do you video them so that you can see

19 the body language and the palpable hostility?

20 A We don't video them, but they're always attended by a

21 representative for the employee.

22 Q Okay. Cooley's reputation in the department. Your

23 understanding of how the deputies relate to Cooley? Is he well

24 respected in the department?

25 MR. KAMERRER: I'll insert an objection, calls for



Page 37

1 speculation. Go ahead.

2 THE WITNESS: From what I know, he is. But I will say

3 that there's been some effort to undermine him in that

4 position. It's not an enviable job, you know, investigating

5 other members of the agency. But it's a critical function that

6 we have to have. It's not the most popular. But he's very

7 straightforward and honest and he does a good job.

8 Q (By Mr. Butler) One of the issues that the deputies have has

9 to do with his credibility before becoming the inspector in

10 relationship to the conflict that he had with Murphy; correct?

11 MR. KAMERRER: I'll insert an objection, calls for

12 speculation.

13 THE WITNESS: Let me make sure that I understand. His

14 credibility?

15 Q (By Mr. Butler) Yeah. People are concerned that -- I mean, if

16 he is providing alcohol to an underage cadet, that maybe he's

17 not the best guy to be investigating their behavior.

18 A I don't believe that credibility was an issue in that

19 investigation. He readily said that, yes, absolutely. She was

20 underage as far as the state statute is concerned, but a member

21 of the Armed Forces, an adult.

22 It was a mistake. He was disciplined for it. He was

23 straightforward and upfront the entire time and said, yes, this

24 is exactly what happened.

25 However, there was more information inserted into that,



Page 38

1 I think, in an attempt to besmirch his reputation or his

2 credibility. But we've never found anything that reflected

3 negatively on his credibility other than the one single

4 incident where he was disciplined.

5 Q Okay. Did he bring that forward to your knowledge? I've been

6 taking --

7 A Who is he?

8 Q I've been taking --

9 A Who is he?

10 Q I'm sorry. Did Cooley bring that forward? I've been taking

11 this young underage female out for drinks?

12 A No.

13 Q How did it come to light to your knowledge?

14 A From what I understand, it was from a detective. Beth Larson

15 brought it forward.

16 Q I -- we're almost done. I just want to make sure that I

17 understand.

18 Is the conduct that he engaged in, buying alcohol,

19 providing alcohol for an underage person -- is that legal

20 behavior because she's in the Armed Forces?

21 MR. KAMERRER: I would just insert an objection that

22 it misstates the evidence.

23 THE WITNESS: Could you ask me that again, please?

24 Q (By Mr. Butler) Sure. You made the comment that somehow

25 because she was in the Armed Forces and an adult, that it was



Page 39

1 not a problem. Was that not a crime?

2 MR. KAMERRER: I object, misstates his testimony.

3 THE WITNESS: It's a crime in the State of Washington

4 to provide alcohol with a couple of exceptions to someone --

5 Q (By Mr. Butler) Those exceptions are?

6 A A parent can.

7 Q Okay. Was Steve Cooley her parent?

8 A Which he obviously was not.

9 Q Okay.

10 A But the law states, generally, it is against the law in the

11 State of Washington.

12 Q Do you know if he was prosecuted?

13 A No. He was not.

14 Q Why not?

15 A That would be the call on the person that we referred it to.

16 We referred it to the City of Lynden for review.

17 Q That was Steve -- that was Lee Bell did that; correct?

18 A I don't know what part he might have had in this.

19 Q Okay. But you're aware that your office, the sheriffs, have

20 arrested people for that conduct and had them prosecuted for

21 providing -- furnishing alcohol to a minor; is that correct?

22 A We have arrested people to that offense.

23 Q Okay. He readily admitted that he did that?

24 A He did.

25 Q It's a crime?



Page 40

1 MR. KAMERRER: Objection, asked and answered.

2 THE WITNESS: It is against the state statute to

3 provide with the exceptions that I stated. I stated those only

4 because the way that you asked me the question implied that he

5 was -- it wasn't really -- I didn't see it in the context that

6 we looked at it from the investigation the way that you stated

7 it. That's all.

8 I don't believe that he bought her alcohol. I don't

9 know. But, you know, part of that was, from what I understand,

10 was at his home or at an establishment.

11 Q (By Mr. Butler) And you don't think that behavior of knowingly

12 breaking the law by providing alcohol to a minor, you don't

13 think that that behavior tends towards a person's credibility

14 if they are intentionally violating the law?

15 MR. KAMERRER: Objection, it's argumentative.

16 THE WITNESS: I didn't approve of it, don't approve of

17 it. But as far as going to his credibility, he was honest

18 about it. He made a mistake, did something that he certainly

19 should not have done. He was disciplined for it and to my

20 knowledge, that's the only issue that he's had since he's been

21 on the department.

22 Q (By Mr. Butler) Now that we've flushed that out a little bit,

23 going back, is that issue, what you're aware of, some of the

24 deputies having a problem with him being the investigator?

25 A I would -- I would conclude that. Yes. I'm sure that that



Page 41

1 causes them some concern.

2 Q Are you aware of any other issues that the deputies have with

3 him doing -- being in that role, other than the one that we've

4 just described, furnishing?

5 A No. Not that I know of.

6 Q Okay.

7 MR. BUTLER: That's all that I have at this time.

8 THE WITNESS: If you would like, I can clarify, I

9 think, on my promotion, if you want a better window on that.

10 MR. BUTLER: No.

11 THE WITNESS: If it doesn't matter, that's fine.

12 MR. BUTLER: It doesn't. I didn't mean to get into

13 your head on that. I was just trying to get landscape of where

14 you were in '08 and '09.


16 MR. KAMERRER: I've got a couple of questions.


18

19 EXAMINATION OF JEFF PARKS BY MR. KAMERRER

20

21 BY MR. KAMERRER:

22 Q In the training that you have received concerning Brady issues,

23 when we say Brady, we're talking about a United States Supreme

24 Court decision. Do you realize that?

25 A Right.



Page 42

1 Q Is Brady the basic policy that the sheriff's office and the

2 prosecutor are obligated to follow?

3 A Yes.

4 Q So the policy comes from the United States Supreme Court?

5 A From case law.

6 Q Okay. There are other cases since then that have refined --

7 A There are.

8 Q -- that decision?

9 A There are.

10 Q Are those things that you learn about in the trainings and

11 seminars that you participate in?

12 A Yes. Particularly, our obligations to provide that information

13 if we have it.

14 Q Okay.

15 MR. BUTLER: Following up -- are you done?

16 MR. KAMERRER: No other questions at this time.

17

18 EXAMINATION OF JEFF PARKS BY MR. BUTLER

19

20 BY MR. BUTLER:

21 Q Following up on that Jeff -- or Undersheriff Parks, is there an

22 unspoken word or unspoken policy that you're aware of in the

23 sheriff's department to keep essentially the dirty laundry

24 in-house?

25 MR. KAMERRER: Objection, argumentative.



Page 43

1 THE WITNESS: No.

2 Q (By Mr. Butler) Historically, has there been? Has that

3 changed?

4 MR. KAMERRER: I'm sorry, could you ask the question

5 again?

6 MR. BUTLER: Sure.

7 Q (By Mr. Butler) The initial question was: Is there an

8 informal practice or policy to essentially keep the dirty

9 laundry in-house as opposed to forwarding it to the

10 prosecutor's office?

11 MR. KAMERRER: And he answered that no. Did you have

12 a follow up to that?

13 MR. BUTLER: I did have a follow up to that.

14 Q (By Mr. Butler) Has that changed?

15 A No.

16 Q So in the entire time that you have been in the sheriff's

17 department, all Brady issues have been run up the pole the same

18 as always?

19 A I can't speak to that specifically because in 31 or almost

20 32 years, I would -- I would -- in the entire time I've been at

21 the sheriff's office, I couldn't tell you if they were all

22 handled the same or even handled appropriately.

23 Q Has there been a shift in policy to run them up and refer them

24 to McEachran? Has there been a shift in that in the last

25 years?



Page 44

1 A In the last year?

2 Q Years?

3 A Years.

4 Q Working your way backwards.

5 A The only thing that I can think of is when we got more clarity,

6 more training on the issue of when we need to provide that

7 information to the prosecutor.

8 I can recall when this first started circulating in the

9 law enforcement world that it was a little unclear as to when

10 and how that information was -- there was an affirmative duty

11 for law enforcement to give that information to the prosecutor.

12 But clearly now being defined as part of the prosecutorial

13 team, there's a clear obligation and duty and that is becoming

14 more standard within the law enforcement realm.

15 But I can tell you that at some point, there was

16 probably not a really clear -- it wasn't clearly settled on

17 exactly how that information was to be provided or when.

18 Q And you're aware that the sheriff's office has destroyed

19 discipline records to avoid having to turn over old or past

20 indiscretions of deputies; correct?

21 A I don't think that that is the case. If we've destroyed a

22 file, it's simply in --

23 Q In the early 2000s, you're not aware that files were destroyed?

24 A I do know that we have disposed of files according to the

25 retention laws.



Page 45

1 Q Okay. And that had previously not been destroyed according to

2 the retention laws; correct?

3 MR. KAMERRER: Objection. Vague. It's confusing.

4 THE WITNESS: You know, I'm not sure. I didn't manage

5 those files for a number of years. Really didn't have routine

6 access to those files until about 2009 when this became our

7 purview.

8 So at that time, what -- prior to that, what the

9 undersheriff or sheriff directed or what the policy was, I

10 wasn't directly involved.

11 Q (By Mr. Butler) In your training, has your training included

12 individual liability to you as an individual if you are aware

13 of Brady material that doesn't get forwarded up?


15 Q (By Mr. Butler) Because you lose your immunity?

16 MR. KAMERRER: Objection, vague. Go ahead.

17 THE WITNESS: There's been material -- I'm aware of

18 material being presented on that. Why there's an affirmative

19 duty and what some of the ramifications can be.

20 Q (By Mr. Butler) Has that been discussed in the department as

21 to why Elfo or the sheriff is the only gatekeeper to refer to

22 the prosecutors -- and if you have or the other deputies have

23 individual liability if they don't?

24 A I don't know if we have discussed it in that context.

25 MR. BUTLER: Okay. Nothing further.



Page 46


2 MR. KAMERRER: That's all.

3 (Signature Reserved)

4 (Deposition Adjourned)

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



Page 47

1 C E R T I F I C A T E

2 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss.

3 COUNTY OF ISLAND )

4 I, Kristen M. Uhlig, the undersigned CCR in and for the Stateof Washington, do hereby certify:

5 That the annexed and foregoing deposition of the witness

6 named herein was taken stenographically before me and transcribedby me;

7 I further certify that the witness examined, read, and signed

8 the deposition after the same was transcribed, unless indicated inthe record that the parties and the witness waive the signature;

9 I further certify that all of the objections made at the time

10 of said examination to my qualifications or the manner of takingthe deposition, or to the conduct of any party, have been noted by

11 me upon said deposition;

12 I further certify that I am not a relative or employee orattorney or counsel of any of the parties to said action or

13 counsel, and that I am not financially interested in the saidaction or the outcome thereof;

14 I further certify that the deposition, as transcribed, is a

15 full, true, and accurate transcript of the testimony, including allquestions and answers, and all objections, motions and exceptions

16 of counsel made and taken at the time of the foregoing examination;

17 I further certify that I am sealing the deposition in anenvelope with the title to the above cause thereon and marked

18 "Deposition Upon Oral Examination" of said witness and promptlycausing the same to be delivered or forwarded to Counsel for the

19 Opposing Party;

20 IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixedmy official seal this ___ day of____________, 2014.

21

22 __________________________

23 Kristen M. Uhlig, #1934 Certified Court Reporter,

24 Residing in Clinton, Washington.

25