Baxter v. W. Wash. Univ.

• Decision Date: 27 December 2021
• Docket Number: No. 82418-0-I,82418-0-I
• Citation: 501 P.3d 581
• Parties: Erasmus BAXTER, Asia Fields, and Julia Furukawa, Respondents, v. WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, an agency of the State of Washington, Respondent, John Does 2, 3, 4, and 6, Appellants.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

501 P.3d 581

Erasmus BAXTER, Asia Fields, and Julia Furukawa, Respondents,

v.WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, an agency of the State of Washington, Respondent,John Does 2, 3, 4, and 6, Appellants.

No. 82418-0-I

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1.

FILED December 27, 2021

Stephen Wray Jackson, Stephen Jackson Law, PLLC, 1303 Commercial St. Ste. 4, Bellingham, WA, 98225-4348, Stephen Thomas Graham, Law Office of Steve Graham, 1312 N Monroe St. Ste. 140, Spokane, WA, 99201-2623, Todd Maybrown, Allen Hansen Maybrown & Offenbecher, PS, 600 University St. Ste. 3020, Seattle, WA, 98101-4105, for Appellant.

William John Crittenden, Law Office, 8915 17th Ave. Ne, Seattle, WA, 98115-3207, Melissa Lynn Nelson, Offc. of The Atty. General, 2211 Rimland Dr. Ste. 325, Bellingham, WA, 98226-6014, for Respondent.

PUBLISHED OPINION

Verellen, J.

¶1 In this Public Records Act dispute, three journalists requested the "final results" of "disciplinary proceedings" including the student's name where Western Washington University had determined a student was responsible for a crime of violence or nonforcible sex offense in the last five years. Four students appeal the trial court's determination that the "final results" including the names of the students are subject to public disclosure.

¶2 Washington's Public Records Act (PRA) mandates broad public disclosure.¹ Its exemptions are to be construed narrowly to ensure that the public interest is fully protected. We conclude the disciplinary results are not exempt from disclosure under RCW 42.56.230(1), the "public schools student file" exemption, because the term "public schools" as used in that exemption does not contemplate postsecondary educational institutions.

¶3 We also conclude the PRA "other statute"² exemption does not extend to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) here because the "final results" exception to FERPA allows disclosure of the "final results of any disciplinary proceeding" where the alleged student committed "any crime of violence" or "nonforcible sex offense" in violation of the institution's rules or policies.³

¶4 And Washington state regulations governing disciplinary proceedings at the university pursuant to the university's student code of conduct stand alone and therefore do not constitute an "other statute" exemption under the PRA.

¶5 Finally, the students do not establish an actionable lack of notice that their disciplinary results could be disclosed under the PRA.

¶6 We affirm.

FACTS

¶7 Between 2013 and 2018, John Does 1 through 7 committed various crimes of violence and/or nonforcible sex offenses while they were students, in violation of the university's student code of conduct.

¶8 On October 10, 2018, three journalists, Erasmus Baxter, Asia Fields, and Julia Furukawa, sent a public records request to the university's public records officer, Dolapo Akinrinade. The journalists’ request stated:

Under Washington's Public Records Act, we would like to request the final results, including the student's name, of disciplinary proceedings where Western has determined a student was responsible for a crime of violence or nonforcible sexual offense in the last five years. If you deny any part of this request, please cite the specific exemption that applies.^{[4 ]}

In response, university officials used Symplicity Advocate, a software tool, "to create a spreadsheet containing data potentially responsive to the request."⁵

¶9 On November 8, 2018, "[a]fter conducting research and verifying that the documents were responsive," Akinrinade provided the journalists with "(i) a table of sexual misconduct offenses and resulting discipline imposed, with the names of the offenders redacted, (ii) a table of violent offenses and resulting discipline imposed, with the names of the offenders redacted, and (iii) an exemption log."⁶ The university noted in the exemption log that it found the names of students exempt from disclosure under RCW 42.56.230(1) of the PRA.

¶10 On May 6, 2019, the journalists filed suit against the university seeking a court order to compel the university to produce the student names.

¶11 At some point after this lawsuit was filed, the university determined that the names of the students were not exempt from disclosure. That summer, the university advised each of the involved students it intended to disclose student names in an unredacted version of the response previously provided, and the students had the opportunity to intervene and seek injunctive relief. Seven students intervened. The students and the journalists stipulated that the university would "not release the requested records relating to John Does 1-7 without redacting the intervenor Does’ names until such date as the superior court rules on the question of whether those records are exempt or not, unless otherwise agreed."⁷

¶12 That August, the university sent a letter to the journalists and the students stating, "With the exception of John Doe Plaintiffs 1-7 who have intervened in the lawsuit, the updated response will include the unredacted names of the students whose records were responsive" to the request.⁸ Before the university released the updated response, it "again reviewed the records to re-verify that the underlying behavior ... for each student at issue fell within the definitions of a crime of violence or nonforcible sexual offense as set forth in 34 CFR 99.39."⁹ The university issued the updated response disclosing the name of each student who committed a "crime of violence" or "nonforcible sex offense" and the discipline imposed with only the names of Does 1-7 redacted.

¶13 Does 1-7 filed motions for injunctive relief in accordance with RCW 42.56.540, and the journalists filed a cross motion for partial summary judgment. On August 10, 2020, the trial court issued its oral decision. That October, the trial court issued an order denying the Does’ motions for injunctive relief and granting the journalists’ cross motion for summary judgment. In its written decision, the court noted that Does "failed to carry their burden of proof to establish that the names of the students whose offenses are listed in the tables provided by [the university] to the Plaintiffs are exempt under either the [PRA] or [FERPA]."¹⁰

¶14 The trial court entered a partial judgment certified under CR 54(b) to enable Does 1-7 to immediately appeal the court's decision without having to wait for the final resolution of the journalists’ claims against the university.¹¹

¶15 Does 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 (the students) petitioned for direct review to the Supreme Court.¹² The Supreme Court denied the students’ petition and transferred the case to this court.¹³

ANALYSIS

¶16 The students argue that the trial court erred in denying their motions for injunctive relief because they contend the PRA cannot "be used as a tool to acquire the names of students who have been disciplined by a public university."¹⁴ We review agency actions "taken or challenged" under RCW 42.56.030 through .520 de novo.¹⁵

¶17 The " ‘fundamental objective’ " of statutory interpretation is to " ‘ascertain and carry out’ " the legislature's intent.¹⁶ "In determining the meaning of the statutory exemption at issue, we apply general principles of statutory construction."¹⁷ "These principles begin with the premise that if a statute is plain and unambiguous, its meaning must be derived from the language of the statute itself."¹⁸

¶18 Generally, "the PRA mandates broad public disclosure"¹⁹ and "gives the public access to the public records of state and local agencies, with the laudable goals of governmental transparency and accountability."²⁰ "The PRA is ‘liberally construed’ and its exemptions narrowly construed to promote this public policy and to assure that the public interest will be fully protected."²¹ To that end, "[t]he PRA requires agencies to disclose any public record on request unless the record falls within [an] exemption."²²

¶19 "There are three sources of PRA exemptions. First, the PRA itself contains specific enumerated exemptions" in sections .210 through .480.²³ Second, public records can be withheld if they fall within an "other statute" which exempts or prohibits disclosure of the specific information or records.²⁴ "Third, the Washington Constitution may exempt certain records from production because the constitution supersedes contrary statutory laws."²⁵ Only the first two sources are relevant here.

I. Student File Exemption

¶20 The "student file" exemption, RCW 42.56.230(1), provides, "Personal information in any files maintained for students in public schools" is "exempt from public inspection and copying under this chapter." The students argue that the unredacted disciplinary results are categorically exempt from disclosure.

¶21 In Lindeman v. Kelso School District No. 458, our Supreme Court relied upon dictionary definitions to conclude that " ‘personal information’ means ‘of or relating to a particular person,’ " " ‘affecting one individual,’ " " ‘affecting each of many individuals,’ " " ‘peculiar or proper to private concerns,’ " and " ‘not public or general.’ "²⁶

¶22 Here, the students contend, and the journalists agree, that the unredacted disciplinary results including student names contain "personal information" as defined in section .230(1).²⁷

¶23 But the students and the journalists disagree whether the unredacted disciplinary results were located in files maintained for students as contemplated by section .230(1). The students argue that because the PRA request here involves information that was "compiled by reviewing disciplinary records," the unredacted disciplinary results are "by their very nature maintained in student files" and are distinct from the videotape at issue in Lindeman.²⁸

¶24 In Lindeman, two elementary school students engaged in an altercation on a school bus.²⁹ A surveillance video camera was installed on the bus and recorded the altercation.³⁰ The parents of one of the students sent a formal...