Belenski v. Jefferson Cnty.
| Decision Date | 01 September 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 92161–0,92161–0 |
| Citation | 378 P.3d 176,186 Wash.2d 452 |
| Parties | Mike Belenski, Petitioner, v. Jefferson County, a Washington State political subdivision, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Mike Belenski, P.O. Box 1132 Poulsbo, WA, 98370, Appearing Pro Se.
David W. Alvarez, Clallam County Prosecuting Attorney's O, 223 E 4th St. Suite 11, Port Angeles, WA, 98362–3000, Jeffrey Scott Myers, Law Lyman Daniel Kamerrer et al, P.O. Box 11880, Olympia, WA, 98508–1880, Counsel for Respondent.
Michele Lynn Earl–Hubbard, Allied Law Group LLC, P.O. Box 33744, Seattle, WA, 98133–0744, Amicus Curiae on behalf of Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington, Washington Newspaper Publishers Association, Olympian, Bellingham Herald, News Tribune, Tri-city Herald, Washington Coalition for Open Government.
Daniel Brian Heid, City of Auburn, 25 W Main St., Auburn, WA, 98001–4998, Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington State Association of Municipal Attorneys.
Sara J. Di Vittorio, Snohomish County Prosecutor's Office, 3000 Rockefeller Ave # Ms504, Everett, WA, 98201–4046, Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.
Fairhurst
, J.
¶ 1 Washington's Public Records Act (PRA), chapter 42.56 RCW, allows citizens broad access to public records and provides a cause of action to challenge inadequate responses to records requests. When Mike Belenski requested certain records from Jefferson County (County), the County responded that it had “no responsive records.” Clerk's Papers (CP) at 214. Over two years later, Belenski sued the County, asserting that this response violated the PRA because the County did in fact have such records and failed to make the proper disclosures. The Court of Appeals dismissed this claim as time barred under the two year statute of limitations in RCW 4.16.130
.
¶ 2 At issue is which statute of limitations applies to Belenski's PRA claim and whether the applicable statute renders his claim time barred. We hold that the one year statute of limitations in the PRA applies to Belenski's claim and that this limitations period usually begins to run on an agency's final, definitive response to a records request. However, we remand this case for the trial court to determine whether equitable tolling should toll the statute of limitations.
¶ 3 Belenski has requested and received many public records from the County over time. Since at least the year 2000, Belenski has sought Internet access logs (IALs) to monitor county employee Internet usage.1 This case involves four of Belenski's PRA requests, only one of which is now before us. On September 27, 2010, Belenski sent the County a PRA request asking to inspect “the Internet Access Logs from February 1, 2010 to September 27, 2010.” CP at 211. One week later, the County mailed a response to Belenski's “Public Records Request Dated September 27, 2010—Internet access logs from February 1, 2010 to September 27, 2010,” stating that “the County has no responsive records.” CP at 214. Belenski received this response via e-mail on October 5, 2010. CP at 213.
¶ 4 Belenski explained that he was “confused” by the county's response because he had requested and received IAL data from the County in the past. CP at 120. This led to him to follow up through conversations with county employees and filing other PRA requests (which are not before us). Eventually, Belenski discovered (through a separate public records response) e-mails between county employees sent shortly after his request admitting that the IALs existed during the relevant time period of Belenski's PRA request, but suggesting the County need not provide them because they are not “natively viewable” and would need to be “pulled out of a database and generated in a human readable format.” CP at 138.
¶ 5 On November 19, 2012, Belenski sued the County, alleging violations of the PRA for his September 27, 2010 request for IALs, along with other PRA requests that are not before us.
¶ 6 The trial court held that IALs are not public records and, therefore, dismissed the claim at issue because the PRA applies only to public records. The Court of Appeals reversed in part, determining that IALs are public records. Belenski v. Jefferson County , 187 Wash.App. 724, 732–33, 350 P.3d 689 (2015)
, review granted, 184 Wash.2d 1032, 364 P.3d 120 (2016). However, the Court of Appeals ultimately dismissed Belenski's claim as time barred by the statute of limitations. The court noted that two possible statutes of limitations may apply—the one year statute of limitations under the PRA, RCW 42.56.550(6), or the two year catchall statute of limitations, RCW 4.16.130. Belenski , 187 Wash.App. at 739, 350 P.3d 689. The Court of Appeals avoided addressing whether the PRA statute of limitations should apply and instead determined that Belenski's claim was time barred under even the longer, two year statute of limitations because “Belenski did not file his complaint until ... over two years after the County responded” to his request for IALs. Id. Belenski sought review of only this portion of the Court of Appeals decision, which dismissed his PRA claim involving the September 27, 2010 request for IALs as time barred. We granted Belenski's petition for review. Belenski, 184 Wash.2d 1032, 364 P.3d 120
.
¶ 7 The PRA is a broad public mandate that allows citizens access to public records. Rental Hous. Ass'n of Puget Sound v. City of Des Moines , 165 Wash.2d 525, 535, 199 P.3d 393 (2009)
(citing Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe , 90 Wash.2d 123, 127, 580 P.2d 246 (1978) ). When a citizen requests public records under the PRA, the agency may respond in one of three ways: produce the records, ask for more time or clarification, or deny the request along with a proper claim of exemption (which requires the agency to identify certain information about the records, list the specific exemptions, and explain how they apply). RCW 42.56.520
, .210(3); see also
Rental Hous. , 165 Wash.2d at 537–38, 199 P.3d 393 (). The PRA provides a cause of action for citizens to challenge violations of this act. See RCW 42.56.550. Our standard of review is de novo. Rental Hous. , 165 Wash.2d at 536, 199 P.3d 393 (citing RCW 42.56.550(3) ).
¶ 8 Belenski claims the County violated the PRA by inadequately responding to his September 27, 2010 request for IALs. More specifically, he asserts that the County silently withheld records by telling him that the County has “no responsive records,” when in fact such records existed. CP at 214. The Court of Appeals held that this claim was time barred. We agree.
¶ 9 At the outset, we must determine which statute of limitations applies to Belenski's claim under the PRA. We must then decide when that limitations period was triggered.
¶ 10 We hold that the trial court incorrectly applied the two year catchall statute of limitations. RCW 42.56.550(6)
is the applicable statute of limitations for Belenski's PRA claim. Although we find that this statute normally begins to run on an agency's definitive, final response to a PRA request, we remand this case for the trial court to determine whether to apply the doctrine of equitable tolling based on the facts of this case.
establishes a one year statute of limitations for claims under the PRA
¶ 11 RCW 42.56.550(6)
“provides a one-year statute of limitations for PRA actions.” Rental Hous. , 165 Wash.2d at 535, 199 P.3d 393. This provision states, “Actions under this section must be filed within one year of the agency's claim of exemption or the last production of a record on a partial or installment basis.” RCW 42.56.550(6)
.
¶ 12 The Court of Appeals, concerned that the County's response in this case did not fall strictly within a claim of exemption or the production of records on an installment basis, did not apply RCW 42.56.550(6)
to Belenski's claim. Instead, the Court of Appeals applied the two year catchall statute of limitations contained in the general chapter on “limitation of actions” in Washington's civil procedure code, which states, “An action for relief not hereinbefore provided for, shall be commenced within two years after the cause of action shall have accrued.” RCW 4.16.130.
¶ 13 We hold that the Court of Appeals incorrectly applied the two year catchall statute of limitations to Belenski's claim, rather than the one year statute of limitations that the PRA explicitly provides. By its express statutory terms, RCW 4.16.130
applies only when a time limit is “not hereinbefore provided for.” But the PRA contains its own statute of limitations in a section titled “Judicial review of agency actions,” RCW 42.56.550, along with a provision stating that the PRA governs in the event it may conflict with any other acts, RCW 42.56.030. Therefore, we adopt the one year statute of limitations in RCW 42.56.550(6) for causes of action under the PRA. Belenski's claim here falls into that category, as he specifically requested to inspect IALs “[p]ursuant to the Public Records Act, RCW 42.56,” and now challenges the agency's response as improper under the PRA. CP at 211. We reverse the Court of Appeals in part and hold that
RCW 42.56.550(6)
is the applicable statute of limitations governing Belenski's claim under the PRA.
¶ 14 Having determined that RCW 42.56.550(6)
is the applicable statute of limitations, we must next decide whether the County's response claiming that there were “no responsive records” was sufficient to trigger this provision. CP at 214. We hold that it is, but we remand for the trial court to determine whether equitable tolling under the facts of this case is appropriate.
¶ 15 Belenski asserts that the one year statute of limitations in RCW 42.56.550(6)
begins to run only on two very specific agency...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- N.L. v. Bethel Sch. Dist.
-
Bogen v. City of Bremerton
...19 Fourth, the City cites Dotson v. Pierce County , 13 Wash. App. 2d 455, 469, 464 P.3d 563 (2020), and Belenski v. Jefferson County , 186 Wash.2d 452, 460, 378 P.3d 176 (2016), to support its assertion that the PRA's statute of limitations begins to run on the date of the triggering event.......
-
Zellmer v. Department of Labor & Industries
... ... production of a record on a partial or installment ... basis." Belenksi v. Jefferson County, 186 Wn.2d ... 452, 460, 378 P.3d 176 (2016), clarified that the statute ... ...
-
Zellmer v. Dep't of Labor & Indus.
...of the agency's claim of exemption or the last production of a record on a partial or installment basis." Belenksi v. Jefferson County, 186 Wn.2d 452, 460, 378 P.3d 176 (2016), clarified that the statute does not limit triggering events to those listed in RCW 42.56.550(6), recognizing "the ......
-
Chapter §16.3 Procedural Aspects of Requestor-Initiated Actions
...begins to run on an agency's final, definitive response to a public records request. Belenski v. Jefferson County, 186 Wn.2d 452, 457, 378 P.3d 176 (2016). An agency's final, definitive response is sufficient to put a requestor on notice that it does not intend to disclose records or furthe......
-
Chapter cases 28
...P.3d 872 (2009): 5.1(1), 5.1(2), 5.2(1), 5.2(1)(b), 5.3, 6.4(2), 16.3(2), 16.3(6)(a), 18.4(6) Belenski v. Jefferson County, 186 Wn.2d 452, 378 P.3d 176 (2016): Ch. 1, 6.7(5), 6.7(5)(c), 6.7(5)(d), 16.3(6)(c) Bellevue John Does 1-11 v. Bellevue Sch. Dist. #405, 129 Wn.App. 832, 120 P.3d 616 ......
-
Chapter §6.7 Reviewing Records for Exemptions
...Wn.App. 221, 235-36, 211 P.3d 423 (2009), review denied, 168 Wn.2d 1023 (2010). Comment: In Belenski v. Jefferson County, 186 Wn.2d 452, 378 P.3d 176 (2016), the court distinguished Rental Housing Association of Puget Sound v. City of Des Moines, 165 Wn.2d 525, 539, 199 P.3d 393 (2009), but......
-
Introduction
...stringent standard that typically applies in civil cases. The Supreme Court's decision in Belenski v. Jefferson County, 186 Wn.2d 452, 378 P.3d 176 (2016), resolved a division split on how to interpret the PRA's statute of limitations. And in 2017, the legislature amended PRA provisions gov......