3 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON 4 FOR THE COUNTY OF JACKSON. 5 KEVIN MCLOUGHLIN, an individual, Case No. 13CV01653.

Transcription

1 1 2 3 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON 4 FOR THE COUNTY OF JACKSON 5 KEVIN MCLOUGHLIN, an individual, 6 Plaintiff, 7 V. 8 PACIFIC RETIREMENT SERVICES, INC., an Oregon nonprofit corporation, 9 Defendant. 10 Case No. 13CV01653 PLAINTIFF S REPLY TO DEFENDANT S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO 11 Plaintiff replies to Defendant s Response to Plaintiff s Motion to Compel as follows: 12 INTRODUCTION 13 Defendant attempts to avoid its obligation of production under ORCP 43 by submitting a 14 lengthy response that contains pages of argument wholly unrelated to the issues raised in 15 Plaintiffs Motion to Compel. Defendant s Response to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel 16 ( Response ), p. t. In a nutshell, Defendant s arguments serve only one purpose: to obfuscate 17 that Defendant: 18 (1) Agreed to produce documents and has failed to do so for more than 100 days; 19 (2) Makes improper blanket objections to most, if not all, of Plaintiffs requests seeking 20 to prevent disclosure of documents clearly reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery 21 of admissible evidence under ORCP 43; and 22 (3) Improperly limits both the scope and time frame of Plaintiff s discovery requests. 23 As such, this Court should grant Plaintiffs Motion to Compel and not allow Defendant to 24 continue to thwart the discovery process. 25 /1/ 26 /1/ Page 1 - PLAINTIFF S REPLY TO DEFENDANT S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LANDYE BENNEfl BLUMSTEIN LLP A..wgs.dLnw Mm SW Fifth Mc,ue. Suite 3300 Portland, Oregon (facsimile)

2 1 ARGUMENT 2 1. Plaintiff Met and Conferred with Defendant 3 Plaintiff agrees that UTCR requires that a moving party must make a good faith 4 effort to meet and confer before filing a motion to compel. Response, p. 2. That obligation was 5 met in this case. 6 On June 14, 2013, Plaintiffs counsel called Defendant s counsel to meet and confer 7 regarding Defendant s responses to Plaintiffs requests. Declaration of Jason A. Wright in 8 Support of Plaintiffs Reply to Defendant s Opposition to Motion to Compel ( Wright Deci. ), 9 2. Plaintiffs counsel s goal with respect to the meet and confer conference with Defendant s 10 counsel was to get the documents responsive to Requests 1, 2,4 through 9, 13 through 17, and through 22 which Defendant had agreed to produce within a reasonable time (i.e. June 21, days after initial service of the requests on April 11, 2013 and 24 days after Defendant had 13 agreed to produce responsive documents in its responses to Plaintiffs requests on May 28, ). Wright Deci., During the meet and confer conversation, Defendant s counsel never disputed that 16 Defendant had agreed to produce documents it had responsive to Requests 1, 2, 4 through 9, through 17, and 19 through 22. Wright Decl., 4. Counsel for Defendant merely stated that she 18 could not give Plaintiffs counsel a time frame in which Defendant would produce those 19 documents. Wright Decl., 5. Plaintiffs counsel was concerned by Defendant s counsel s 20 resistance to setting a specific time for production after having the discovery for more than days. Wright Deci., 6. This concern arose in part from an ongoing course and pattern of delay 22 by Defendant which started with its request that Plaintiff not file suit and participate in a pre-suit 23 mediation in which Defendant made no offer to settle. Wright Decl., 7. Based upon 24 Defendant s counsel s unwillingness to commit to a time frame for production, and Plaintiffs 25 counsel s experience with ongoing delay tactics by Defendant, Plaintiffs counsel indicated that 26 I/! Page 2- PLAINTIFF S REPLY TO DEFENDANT S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LANDYS BENNEfl BLUMSTETN H.P 0, at Lsrs Allan, 1300 SW Fifth Av,nue, Suite 3500 Portland. Oregon (Owsimile)

3 1 if all responsive documents were not produced on or before June 21, 2013 that he would need to 2 file a motion to compel production of those documents. Wright Decl., 8. 3 In addition, Plaintiffs counsel discussed the deficiencies of Defendant s blanket 4 objections and the waiver of those objections by failing to properly comply with ORCP Wright Decl., 9. Plaintiffs counsel further discussed with Defendant s counsel the improper 6 nature of Defendant s unilateral decision to limit both the scope and time frame for requested 7 documents in a number of Plaintiffs requests. Wright Decl., 10. In support of his position, 8 Plaintiffs counsel provided Defendant s counsel with a number of cases and urged her to 9 provide responsive documents as her client s objections had no merit and had been waived. 10 Wright Decl., 11. Plaintiffs counsel also told Defendant s counsel that if the Defendant was 11 unable or unwilling to produce all responsive documents to all requests by June 21, 2013 that 12 Plaintiff would file his motion to compel. Wright Decl., To confirm the discussions and representations made during that discussion, Plaintiffs 14 counsel sent an to Defendant s counsel indicating that Plaintiff wanted all responsive 15 documents produced on or before June 21, Wright Deel., 13, see also June 14, 2013 e 16 mail from Jason Wright to Christie Totten ( Totten DecI. ) attached as Ex. ito the Declaration 17 of Christie S. Totten in Support of Defendant s Response to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel 18 Production. In his , Plaintiffs counsel indicated that Defendant s counsel could him 19 during his vacation with proposals on how the documents would be produced. Wright Decl., and Ex. I to Totten Decl. Finally, Plaintiffs counsel re-confirmed that if Defendant was 21 unwilling or unable to produce all responsive documents on or before June 21, 2013 that Plaintiff 22 stood ready to file his motion to compel. Wright DecI., 15 and Ex. 1 to Totten Decl. Contrary 23 to Defendant s counsel s assertion, the was not a fhrther invitation to meet and confer, but 24 rather a confirmation of the action to be taken by Plaintiff should all responsive documents not 25 be produced. Wright Decl., I/I Page 3 - PLAINTIFF S REPLY TO DEFENDANT S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LANDYE BENNETT BLUMSTEIN LLP ACo,r, w bin 1300 SW Filth Avenue, Suit Portland. Oregon (lactimile)

4 1 The next communication that Plaintiffs counsel received from Defendant s counsel was 2 a June 19, 2013 letter stating that Defendant had reviewed the cases Plaintiffs counsel had 3 referred her to and disagreed with Plaintiffs position that Defendant s objections and limitations 4 of Plaintiffs request were improper. Wright DecI., 17, see also June 19, 2013 letter from 5 Christie Totten to Jason Wright attached as Ex. 2 to Totten DecI. In the letter, Defendant s 6 counsel indicated that Defendant would only be producing some responsive documents. 7 Wright Decl., 18 and Ex. 2 to Totten Decl. at p Based upon the Defendant s stated position in its June 19, 2013 letter and the meet and 9 confer conference between the parties on June 14, 2013, Plaintiffs counsel filed Plaintiffs 10 motion to compel. Wright Decl., The fact that Defendant s chose not to produce the responsive documents requested after 12 more than two weeks of meet and confer efforts between the parties does not mean that 13 Plaintiffs counsel failed to properly meet and confer. Wright Decl., 20. It just means that 14 without this Court s intervention the Defendant believes it can engage in a course and scope of 15 purposeful delay by not producing responsive documents for more than 100 days to prevent the 16 timely and efficient prosecution of this case. Wright Decl., 21. The Plaintiff asks that this Court 17 help the Defendant understand it cannot Plaintiff is Entitled to All Responsive Documents Defendant Has Agreed to Produce 19 Defendant next argues that because it produced some responsive documents and 20 continues to work toward producing more documents that Plaintiffs motion somehow lacks 21 merit and should be dismissed. Response, p. 4 Surprisingly, Defendant provides absolutely no 22 legal support for its illogical argument that because it has produced some documents that 23 Plaintiffs Motion to Compel should be dismissed Plaintiffs counsel and Defendant s counsel have also continued to meet and confer regarding discovery issues including multiple s and telephone conferences and attempted telephone 26 conferences during the week preceding this hearing. Despite the parties best efforts the parties continue to be unable to resolve the discovery disputes set out in Plaintiffs motion. Page 4- PLAINTIFF S REPLY TO DEFENDANT S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LANDYE BENNETT BLUMSTEIN ap at Lap 300 SW F,1,h Avenue, Suiie 3500 Portland, Oregon , (facsimile)

5 1 Even more surprisingly, in its Response, rather than support the argument it claims it is 2 making, the Defendant argues that despite having already agreed to produce responsive 3 documents to the Plaintiff, that now that it has actually begun to look at the data volume of the 4 information necessary to produce those responsive documents, the work involved to comply with 5 Plaintiffs requests will require extensive time and involve extensive cost which it does not want 6 to bear. In fact, the Defendant cites to its Motion for Protective Order filed concurrently with its 7 Response in an attempt to ignore its prior agreement to produce responsive documents and shift 8 the onus and cost of the production of those documents from itself (a self-admitted large 9 corporation with hundreds of employees and a fill time Information Technology stafe ( IT )) to 10 the Plaintiff (a recently terminated employee attempting to start a new career after more than years as a loyal employee of the Defendant). Although the merit of Defendant s Motion for 12 Protective Order is not set for hearing until August 12, 2013, and thus not currently at issue with 13 the Court, because Plaintiff cites to it, Plaintiff is sure that the Defendant will attempt to raise 14 and argue those issues during oral argument. As such, as a self-admitted large corporation with a 15 frill time IT Department, it is undisputed that the Defendant stands in a much better position to 16 incur the time and bear the cost for producing documents to Plaintiff that it has already agreed to 17 produce than Plaintiff does. Despite this fact, during the meet and confer conference, Plaintiff 18 volunteered to accept the entirety of the responsive documents subject to a claw back agreement 19 to prevent Defendant s concern regarding the resources necessary to review for production the 20 documents it admits are responsive. Wright Decl., 22. Plaintiffs counsel also suggested that 21 Defendant meet with the appropriate people within its organization and task those individuals to 22 apply their knowledge of their own communications on the issues presented as that rather than 23 producing an enormous data set of documents for review, the Defendant could instead focus the 24 right people on the issues presented. Wright Decl., 23. Both suggestions were unacceptable to See Declaration of Marc Johnson in Support of Defendant s Response to Plaintiff s Motion to Compel. PageS - PLAINTIFF S REPLY TO DEFENDANT S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LANDYE BENNEfl BLUMSTEIN LLP Alien.fyi a! Lam 1300 SW Filth Avcnuc. Suite 3500 Portland. Oregon (Ewuimile

6 i.e. 1 Defendant s counsel who appears to believe only one method of compiling and reviewing 2 responsive documents is acceptable compiling huge unnecessary data sets and having each 3 document individually reviewed. Wright Decl., Defendant Has No Motion to Compel Before the Court 5 Defendant improperly attempts to influence the Court by arguing that the Plaintiff has 6 also failed to properly object to Defendant s requests and therefore its improper objections are 7 acceptable. This argument fails because the Plaintiff has properly objected to Defendant s 8 requests and because the Defendant has made no attempt to meet and confer with Plaintiff about 9 its objections or file a motion regarding those objections. As such, no issue is before the Court 10 regarding Plaintiffs responses to Defendant s discovery and any such argument should be 11 disregarded Plaintiffs Requests Are Within the Scope of ORCP 36 and Defendant also asserts that Plaintiffs requests are not within the scope of ORCP 36(B)(1) 14 and 43(B)(1) because the requests must be relevant to a claim or defense of either party, 15 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and must describe the 16 requested category of documents with reasonable particularity. Response, p. 7. Plaintiffs 17 requests do all three. 18 Interestingly, Defendant s sole support for its argument that Plaintiffs requests are not 19 within the ORCP 36(B)(1) and 43(B)(1) scope of discovery appears to be that Plaintiffs Request 20 No. 3 is overly broad. Afler making the same boiler plate objection it has already made, the 21 Defendant asks the Court to bootstrap that argument to all of Plaintiffs requests and find that 22 Plaintiffs requests are universally outside the scope of ORCP 36(B)(1) and 43(B)(1) discovery. 23 This argument is perplexing as the Defendant entirely fails to discuss how or why its objections 24 to Request 3 legally or factually result in the Court being able to impute those objections to all of 25 Plaintiffs requests such that Plaintiffs motion to compel should be dismissed. As such, this 26 argument should be disregarded with respect to every request other than Request 3. However, the Page 6- PLAINTIFF S REPLY TO DEFENDANT S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LANDYE BENNETT BLUMSTEIN LLP AItonrrys d La. 300 SW Filth Avenue, Suite 3500 Portland, Oregon (E,csimile)

7 I Court need not consider the objections raised by Defendant in response to Request 3 as they were 2 not properly made in Defendant s response to Plaintiffs requests and therefore have been 3 waived pursuant to ORCP 43(B)(3) Pursuant to ORCP 43 Defendant Has Waived the Right to Object 5 Defendant next argues that it has not waived its right to object because the cases cited to 6 by the Plaintiff either don t relate to requests for production or are federal cases which this Court 7 should ignore. Unfortunately, in making its argument the Defendant has chosen to ignore that 8 the Plaintiffs arguments regarding waiver rely not upon the cases cited but upon ORCP 43(B). 9 The federal cases cited to by the Plaintiff merely re-iterate what the ORCPs already provide and 10 have been relied upon by many Oregon Courts for years i.e. that a party objecting to a request 11 must give the reason for the objection (ORCP 43(B)(2)(d)) and any objection that does not 12 provide a reason for the objection is deemed waived (ORCP 43(B)(3). As such, by not providing 13 the reason for objection, but rather boilerplate objections with no explanation as to why those 14 objections apply, the Defendant has waived its right to object and all responsive documents must 15 be produced Defendant Cannot Unilaterally Limit the Scope and Time of Plaintiffs Requests 17 Defendant s final argument is that it can make boilerplate objections and then unilaterally 18 limit the scope of and time frame for the documents it wants to produce in response to Plaintiffs 19 requests. It cannot. 20 Plaintiffs Motion to Compel provides specific information regarding the deficiencies in 21 Defendant s responses to Requests 2, 4, 7 through 9, 13 through 16, and 21 through 22 and the 22 reasons why the scope and time frame for the requests. For ease, each request will be discussed 23 by category or request as set forth in Defendant s Response brief. 24 Request 2: Plaintiff has requested documents related to him regarding his employment, 25 hiring, appointment, job descriptions and duties, performance, evaluations, appraisals, reviews, 26 I/I Page 7- PLAINTIFF S REPLY TO DEFENDANT S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LANDYE BENNEfl BLUMSTEIN LU Law 1300 SW Fifth Aye,,,. Suite 3500 l ortsmd, Oregon (facsimile) )9-002

8 i.e. 1 discipline, promotions, assignments, renewals, termination, or other communication related to 2 his employment. 3 Defendant argues that it should be limited to turning over those materials relating to 4 Plaintiff maintained by its management. However, as Defendant is well aware, in employment 5 related cases the management file is typically not where the most critical documents relating to 6 the decisions made that led to a wrongful termination or retaliatory discharge are to be found. In 7 fact, the parties counsels spent a great deal of time meeting and conferring on Friday, July 19, discussing the size and scope of the documents and communications that exist discussing 9 Plaintiff and his leave and termination. As such, the Defendant s counsel is well aware of the 10 reasons for Plaintiffs request and the Plaintiff is well aware of the fact that Defendant has 11 responsive documents which are not going to be found in a sanitized management file. Those 12 documents should be produced, as they go to the single most critical issue of the case the 13 actions by Plaintiff to provide documents to the RVM Board and the reaction to that by the 14 Defendant in placing Plaintiff on administrative leave and then terminating him. 15 Requests 4, 13-16: Requests 4 and 13 through 16 have 14 subcategories. Defendant s 16 responses to Plaintiff s requests refuse to produce documents in response to subcategories 4 17 through 10. The Defendant argues that the documents need not be produced as they are not 18 relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and that they 19 seek to re-litigate tangential issues already resolved in prior disputes Defendants had with RVM 20 and the RVM residents. Response, p. 11. Interestingly, documents responsive to subcategories 4 21 through 10 relate directly to the allegations of the Counterclaims recently asserted by Defendant 22 which squarely place the alleged tangential issues Defendant refers to in its response to this 23 case. See Amended Complaint, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims filed by Defendant on 24 or about July 10, 2013 attached as Exhibit A to Wright Decl. Then, as an aside, Defendant states 25 that it has no documents responsive to subcategories 4 through 10. Response, p. 11. As such, 26 Plaintiff requests that Defendant supplement its response confirming it has no responsive Page 8- PLAINTIFF S REPLY TO DEFENDANT S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LANDYE BENNETT BLUMSTEIN LLP Atjum 0s at Lap l3o SW m1h Avc,c. Suite 3500 Portland. Oregon (Etcuimile)

9 I documents and be barred from later producing responsive documents or using those documents 2 at trial. 3 Requests 7 through 9, and 21. Defendant attempts to group Plaintiff s Requests 7 4 through 9 and 21 together by arguing that they are overly broad because they seek all 5 documents relating to a certain subject matter. This is the same objection Defendant made to 6 Plaintiffs requests and it still has no merit. 7 Request No. 7: With regard to Plaintiffs Request 7, the Plaintiff asks for documents 8 that relate to Plaintiffs job duties and set forth the description for those job duties during his 9 employment. 10 The request seeks documents that were written by Plaintiffs superiors about the job Plaintiff 11 held and/or the essential functions of those jobs. These documents will demonstrate the scope 12 and authority of the Defendant over Plaintiff during the entirety of his employment. They also 13 show the ongoing and continuing upward movement of Plaintiff from low level management to a 14 position of high authority and respect within the Defendant s company. The documents will also 15 show how the level of responsibilities and duties given to the Plaintiff by the Defendant 16 increased substantially on a year to year basis and how Plaintiff consistently and repeatedly 17 performed those duties at an exceptionally high level. In addition, the Plaintiff only held a few 18 positions during the entirety of his 20 plus year career with the Defendant so production of 19 responsive documents is not unduly burdensome. Finally, the Defendant has already agreed to 20 produce the documents, but has simply failed to do so. 21 Request No. 8: Defendant argues that documents related to the decisions it made with 22 regard to how it changed the management structure should not be discoverable. Instead, it argues 23 that merely producing organization charts is sufficient. However, without the documents 24 describing the changes to the organization charts and the reasons for those changes, the 25 organization charts are of limited use. As such, Plaintiff requested those communications and 26 they are important and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as Page 9 - PLAINTIFF S REPLY TO DEFENDANT S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO L4NDYE BENNEfl BLUMSTEINLLP,lttomgs at tar 1300 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 3500 Portland, Oregon ( (33 (thraitnile)

10 I they relate directly to who Plaintiff reported to, the direction Plaintiff received to perform his 2 job, and those in charge of making decisions regarding his leave and termination. As such, the 3 documents should be produced. 4 Request No. 9. Plaintiffs Request 9 seeks employee handbooks, supervisor manuals, 5 personnel policies, and procedures and rules in effect from January 1, 2008 until Plaintiffs 6 termination which relate to administration of grievances, guidelines pertaining to conflicts of 7 interest, procedures for imposition of discipline or for termination, and practices for evaluation 8 of employee job performance. Plaintiffs request also seeks only revisions to any responsive 9 documents after Plaintiffs termination. 10 Defendant argues that if Plaintiff wants specific information that he should specify that. 11 Plaintiff believes he has. In addition, the documents requested are more than reasonable in time 12 and scope because they relate to the relevant time frames at issue which relate to the rules of the 13 road for employees including Plaintiff at the time when Defendant claims improper action was 14 taken against him as well as during the time in which the Plaintiff was performing the job duties 15 given to him relating to the management agreements between Defendant and RVM and the Crest 16 Park transaction at issue in the claims asserted against Plaintiff in Defendant s Counterclaims. 17 Finally, any changes to those documents responsive would assist in narrowing the areas in which 18 those policies failed with regard to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the documents requested are 19 reasonable and should be produced. 20 Request No. 21. Plaintiffs Request 21 seeks documents regarding pension and 21 employee benefits available to Plaintiff from January 1, 2008 to August 24, This request 22 is very limited in that it merely seeks the employee benefits packages available to Plaintiff for a 23 limited time. Plaintiff should not be required to extrapolate his damages from a single year s 24 benefits package when his actual benefit packages are available and easily produced by 25 Defendant. The documents to be produced and the time frame for production is both reasonable 26 and necessary. Page 10- PLAINTIFF S REPLY TO DEFENDANT S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LANDYB BENNEfl BLUMSTEIN LU All.mgsWLm 300 SW Filth Avenue. Suite 3500 Portland, Oregon I33 (lacuimile)

11 1 Request No. 22. Plaintiffs Request 22 seeks only documents in Defendant s possession 2 which relate to claims, lawsuits, or administrative actions from January 1, 2008 to present 3 involving allegations of breach of contract, whistleblower protection, or wrongful discharge. 4 The scope and time frame of the request is reasonable and any responsive documents are 5 reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Nevertheless, Defendant 6 indicates it believes upon information and belief that it is has no responsive documents. Plaintiff 7 would merely ask that Defendant confirm its belief and supplement its response by stating no 8 documents exist or providing those documents that do Plaintiff Should Be Awarded Reasonable Expenses 10 Defendant argues that it should be awarded reasonable expenses, including its attorney 11 fees in opposing the Plaintiffs Motion to Compel despite having valid argument for why it has 12 agreed to produce responsive documents to more than half of the Plaintiffs requests but has 13 failed to do so for more than 100 days. As such, Plaintiff requests that should this Court grant 14 his motion and exercise its discretion under ORCP 46(A)(4) and award Plaintiff his reasonable 15 expenses, including his attorney fees. 16 CONCLUSION 17 The parties have attempted in good faith to meet and confer regarding the current 18 discovery issues before the Court. Despite these efforts, the Defendant continues to refuse to 19 produce responsive documents that it has agreed to produce for 55 days at the time of hearing. 20 In addition, after Plaintiff provided very specific reasons why the scope and time frame for 21 requests he made were reasonable and necessary, Defendant continues to maintain that its 22 boilerplate objections and unilateral decisions on what it will produce to Plaintiff apply. As 23 such, the Plaintiff has found it necessary to file a motion to compel with the Court to resolve 24 III 25 III 26 I/I Page 11 - PLAINTIFF S REPLY TO DEFENDANT S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LANDYE BENNETT BLUMSTEIN LLP Attom,r cu Lcnv 1300 SW Fifth Avcn,e S,it Portl,nd, Oregon (facsimile)

12 1 these disputes so that documents can be produced within a time certain and discovery can move 2 forward with this matter in a timely and efficient manner. 3 DATED this 19th day of July LANDYE BENNEfF BLUMSTEIN LLP 6 ByjK: 7 R4iard S. Yugler, # JMon A. Wright, 9B # f Attorneys forçaintiff Page 12- PLAINTIFF S REPLY TO DEFENDANT S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO LANDYE BENNETT BLUMSTEIN LU AUowgs&Law 300 SW FilijiAvenueSuite 3500 Ponland, Oregon ( (facsimile)

13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certif that on July 19, 2013,1 served the foregoing PLAINTIFF S REPLY TO DEFENDANT S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO on the following individual(s): by hand delivery Carol J. Bernick carolbemick@dwt.com Robert D. Newell bobnewell@dwt.com Christie S. Totten christietotten@dwt.com DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 1300 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 2400 Portland, OR Phone: (503) Fax: (503) OfAttorneysfor Defendant ANDYE BENNETT BLUMSTEIN LLP (/ZrtQRTLAND Legal Assistant to Jason A. Wright Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Page 1 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE LANDYE BENNETT BLUMSTEIN LW ella 1300 S V Filch Avenue. Suite 3500 Portland, Oregon (chrsimile)