Beidler v. Snohomish Cnty.

• Decision Date: 08 May 2023
• Docket Number: 84316-8-I
• Parties: ROBERT BEIDLER, Appellant, v. SNOHOMISH COUNTY, Respondent.
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals

1

ROBERT BEIDLER, Appellant, v. SNOHOMISH COUNTY, Respondent.

No. 84316-8-I

Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1

May 8, 2023

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

HAZELRIGG, A.C.J.

Robert Beidler appeals from an order granting summary judgment in favor of Snohomish County that resulted in the dismissal of his claims under the Public Records Act.^[1] Because Beidler fails to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Snohomish County's response to his request was reasonably diligent, and the record establishes it did not constructively deny his request, dismissal was proper.

FACTS

Robert Beidler works as an independent consultant on the subject of traffic safety.In 2015, while he was the undersheriff of Snohomish County(the County), he began developing a traffic safety program that was ultimately implemented at the Snohomish County Sheriff's Office(SCSO).In 2020 after retiring from a lengthy career in law enforcement Beidler planned a business based on conducting traffic safety presentations around the country.

In an effort to gather accurate data for this business venture Beidler submitted a public document request (PDR) to Snohomish County on March 12, 2021 under the Public Records Act (PRA), seeking the following:

Sheriffs [sic] Office- All driving review board pursuit and collision summaries for 2020.All commander summaries for pursuits and collisions in 2020.All collision reports for 2020 where a sheriffs office [sic] vehicle was involved.It should include ramming, pinning, pitting, work damage, and any other report or summary called a collision.Number of injuries to sheriffs office [sic] personnel as a result of vehicle collisions and pursuits.Number of injuries to citizens as a result of sheriffs office [sic] collisions or pursuits.

County- All litigation and potential litigation as a result of sheriffs office [sic] collisions or pursuits in 2020.It should include dollar amount of that litigation or potential litigation.

County- Total dollar amount of damage to sheriffs office [sic] vehicles in 2020 as a result of collisions or pursuits.That should include parts, labor, outside vendor work, any any addition [sic] shop costs.The county has a cost for each mile driven by sheriffs office [sic] vehicle by vehicle type.What was that per mile cost for 2019, 2020, 2021.

The County received the request that day and assigned it a tracking number.The request primarily sought records relating to the SCSO Driving Review Board(DRB); the DRB is tasked with conducting internal collision and driving reviews that focus on reducing collisions involving SCSO vehicles and the risk of recurrence.However, Beidler's PDR also included litigation and maintenance records from other departments, as well as records related to collisions and injuries.

The request was assigned to Jessica Payne, the supervisor of the SCSO Public Disclosure Unit (PDU), which is the unit predominantly responsible for gathering and processing requests for records from the SCSO.The PDU has seven full-time employees: one supervisor, five public information and records specialists (PIRS), and one administrative law enforcement technician.Payne was familiar with the DRB and knew that the production of one year's worth of DRB records and reports would be "voluminous and require time-consuming review."Accordingly, the request was categorized as "intermediate"^[2] and Payne believed "the best way to produce the records would be on an installment basis."

On March 15, 2021, Payne received all of the potentially responsive records sought in Beidler's request from the various County departments.The records were in digital format and included the following: 6,306 PDF/Microsoft Word pages (digital document format); 74 combined WAV files (audio file format), MP4 files and MPEG files (multimedia file formats); 6 emails; 1 PowerPoint (slideshow program) file;2 HTML files (web page format);and 147 PNG/JPEG files (image file formats).Each of the records identified as potentially responsive needed to be reviewed to determine if it was truly responsive to Beidler's request, then whether it was subject to a PRA exemption and therefore should not be produced at all, and finally, if it was not exempt, whether any redactions would be required prior to production.Payne "estimated that [she] would initially be able to devote 1-2 hours to this request," and produce the first installment by May 4, 2021.

On March 19, 2021, the County sent written acknowledgment of Beidler's request, as required by statute, and advised him that the first installment of records would be available by May 4.Payne's estimated production date was "based on the number of responsive records provided for [her] review, the level of review necessary and need to apply redactions, the number of other pending requests, staffing levels, [her] other job duties, and the need to coordinate with other departments producing records."Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic had caused the process of coordinating between County departments to become "more onerous and more time consuming because of limited in person work and face to face interaction."

The most time-consuming aspect of processing the request consisted of locating and redacting the exempt information.To do this, Payne was required to "review each page individually to determine whether any information within it is exempt."As many of the requested documents were police reports that contained personal and otherwise exempt information that "cannot be reliably located using computer software," Payne manually reviewed each document, reading the entire report to ensure all exempt information was properly redacted.After Payne located the information to redact, she used computer software to manually select the redacted portion and then applied an exemption code to that redaction.Payne necessarily used this process for every redaction applied to each responsive document.

Payne devoted "between 1-6 hours each month" to Beidler's request.From May 4 to December 8, 2021, the County provided seven installments to Beidler, comprising 824 out of the total 6,306 pages of potentially responsive documents and additional potentially responsive files in other formats (audio, HMTL, etc.).On December 21, 2021, Beidler sent a demand letter to the County seeking all the remaining records as well as attorney fees and costs, claiming the County had failed to timely fulfill his request.^[3] As Payne was also responsible for managing potential County liability stemming from its responses to PRA requests, she devoted additional time to Beidler's request after receiving the demand letter even though she believed the County's response had been timely from the date of its receipt.Between January 13 and June 10, 2022, the County provided seven more installments to Beidler, comprising 3,564 pages, along with audio and video files and emails.As of June 10, 2022, the County had provided 14 installments to Beidler, totaling 4,388 pages.^[4]

On March 9, 2022, Beidler filed suit against the County, claiming it had unreasonably delayed production and wrongfully withheld the records.A declaration from Beidler, dated March 8, 2022, was filed with the complaint, along with copies of his original PDR and a later inquiry he sent through the County's public records portal seeking a status update on his request.In the complaint, Beidler sought penalties, costs, and attorney fees under the PRA.On May 31, 2022, the County filed a motion for summary judgment for dismissal of Beidler's claims.

Beidler opposed the motion and provided a number of documents demonstrating the completion of his PDR as to all requested files other than the DRB records.He also provided an updated declaration, dated June 15, 2022, and accompanying exhibits that included the original PDR, the follow up inquiry he sent through the County records portal, and SCSO documents purporting to demonstrate that the records he sought required minimal redaction.The trial court granted the County's motion and dismissed Beidler's claim, finding that the County had not denied Beidler an opportunity to inspect or copy a requested record and "has produced, and is continuing to produce" records pursuant to Beidler's request in a timely and appropriate manner and in accordance with the PRA.Beidler timely appealed.

ANALYSIS

Beidler avers the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the County acted with reasonable diligence in providing the DRB records he requested and whether that conduct ultimately resulted in wrongful withholding.We disagree.

I.Summary Judgment and the PRA

Judicial review of agency actions under the PRA is de novo.RCW 42.56.550(3).Where, as here, the record includes only documentary evidence, this court conducts the same inquiry as the trial court.Spokane Police Guild v. Liquor Control Bd., 112 Wn.2d 30, 35-36, 769 P.2d 283(1989).PRA claims may be decided on summary judgment.West v Dep't of Licensing, 182 Wn.App. 500, 505, 331 P.3d 72(2014).Summary judgment is proper when the record shows "no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."CR56(c).A material fact is one upon which the outcome of litigation, in whole or in part, depends.Atherton Condo. Apt.-Owners Ass'n Bd. of Dirs. v. Blume Dev. Co., 115 Wn.2d 506, 516, 799 P.2d 250(1990).The facts are viewed in the "light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and summary judgment is granted only if, from all of the evidence, reasonable persons could reach but one conclusion."Vallandigham v. Clover Park Sch. Dist. No. 400, 154 Wn.2d 16, 26, 109 P.3d 805(2005)(...