Burt v. Wash. State Dep't Of Corr.
| Decision Date | 13 May 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 80998-4.,80998-4. |
| Citation | 231 P.3d 191,168 Wash.2d 828 |
| Parties | Eric BURT, Gary Edwards, Sherry Hartford, JoAnn Irwin, John Moore, Clifford Pease, David Snell, Harold Snively, Alan Walter, Dustin West, Paul-David Winters, Cheri Sterlin, Laura Coleman, Charles Crow, Richard “Jason” Morgan, Respondents,v.WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent,Allan Parmelee, Petitioner. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Michael Charles Kahrs, Kahrs Law Firm P.S., Alex D. Brown, Attorney at Law, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.
Peter William Berney, Daniel John Judge, Attorney General's Office, Jay Douglas Geck, Attorney General's Office, Olympia, for Respondent.
Eric Burt, Sherry Hartford, JoAnn Irwin, Clifford Pease, David Snell, Alan Walter, Dustin West, Washington State Penitentiary, Walla Walla, WA, Pro Se Respondents.
Margaret Ji Yong Pak, Sarah A. Dunne, Nancy Lynn Talner, ACLU, Seattle, WA, for Amicus Curiae American Civil Liberties Union.
William John Crittenden, Patrick Denis Brown, Attorneys at Law, Seattle, WA, for Amicus Curiae Washington Coalition for Open Government.
¶ 1 This case involves a challenge to a public records injunction proceeding under chapter 42.56 RCW, where employees moved to enjoin their employer, the Department of Corrections (DOC), from releasing documents requested under the Public Records Act (PRA). Mr. Allan Parmelee, the requester of these records, was not joined in the action. The trial court enjoined the release of the requested records. Mr. Parmelee filed a limited notice of appearance, a motion to intervene, and a motion to reconsider in the Walla Walla Superior Court. Mr Parmelee also requested attorney fees and costs pursuant to the PRA. The trial court denied these motions. Mr. Parmelee appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. We reverse and hold Mr. Parmelee's joinder was required pursuant to CR 19.
¶ 2 On or about October 7, 2004, Mr. Parmelee, an inmate at the Washington State Penitentiary (WSP), requested the disclosure of documents containing information for several DOC employees at the WSP. Mr. Parmelee sent his request to Ms. Megan Murray, the DOC's public disclosure coordinator. On December 22, 2004, Ms. Murray informed Mr. Parmelee that, because the affected employees planned to seek injunctive relief, the DOC would not release the documents Mr. Parmelee requested “until a hearing date is scheduled and a decision is made by [the] Walla Walla Superior Court....” Clerk's Papers (CP) at 500.
¶ 3 On January 26, 2005, 11 DOC employees filed suit against the DOC, seeking a protective order, basing their claim on privacy. Although the employees signed the complaint, they gave no addresses. Four additional plaintiffs were added by amended complaint; they also did not provide addresses. The employees did not name Mr. Parmelee as a party to this lawsuit. By letter, on February 1, 2005, Ms. Murray informed Mr. Parmelee the hearing for the lawsuit was set for February 22, 2005. In the letter, Ms. Murray stated she would “notify [Mr. Parmelee] of the outcome of the hearing....” CP at 499.
¶ 4 On March 14, 2005, the DOC filed a memorandum in support of granting the protective order requested by its employees. CP at 12-19. At the hearing, the trial court permanently enjoined the release of the requested records: Mr. Parmelee, the requester, was never joined in the lawsuit.
¶ 5 On March 30, 2005, Mr. Parmelee received a copy of the trial court's order and notice that the trial court denied his PRA request. Following this notice, Mr. Parmelee filed a limited notice of appearance seeking to intervene and requested that the trial court reconsider. CP at 123-30. He also argued that the plaintiffs' addresses were erroneously absent from the pleadings. The trial court denied his motion. Mr. Parmelee appealed, arguing, among other things, that his joinder in the action was mandatory under CR 19. CP at 485-93.
¶ 6 The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court and concluded that “Mr. Parmelee was not needed for a just adjudication, nor was he needed in equity and good conscience to proceed.” Burt v. Dep't of Corr., 141 Wash.App. 573, 580, 170 P.3d 608 (2007). The Court of Appeals held the motion to intervene under CR 24 was untimely. It also held the failure to include the plaintiffs' addresses with the pleadings did not constitute error in this case. Because Mr. Parmelee did not prevail on any of his claims, his request for attorney fees and costs was also denied.
2. Whether Mr. Parmelee's motion to intervene should have been granted, under CR 24?
¶ 7 Where judicial review of an agency's action is taken or challenged under RCW 42.56.030 through 42.56.520, our review is de novo. Soter v. Cowles Publ'g Co., 162 Wash.2d 716, 731, 174 P.3d 60 (2007). The interpretation of court rules is a matter of law, which we review de novo. State v. Robinson, 153 Wash.2d 689, 693, 107 P.3d 90 (2005).
¶ 8 This matter concerns chapter 42.56 RCW, the PRA,1 which was enacted in 1972. The PRA “is a strongly worded mandate for broad disclosure of public records.” Soter, 162 Wash.2d at 731, 174 P.3d 60 (quoting Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe, 90 Wash.2d 123, 127, 580 P.2d 246 (1978)). This act requires all state and local agencies to disclose any public record upon request, unless it falls within certain specific, enumerated exemptions. The language of the PRA identifies the public's interest in the full disclosure of public records: RCW 42.56.030 (emphasis added); see also Spokane Police Guild v. Liquor Control Bd., 112 Wash.2d 30, 33, 769 P.2d 283 (1989). “The stated purpose of the Public Records Act is nothing less than the preservation of the most central tenets of representative government, namely, the sovereignty of the people and the accountability to the people of public officials and institutions.” Progressive Animal Welfare Soc'y v. Univ. of Wash., 125 Wash.2d 243, 251, 884 P.2d 592 (1994).
¶ 9 Mr. Parmelee requested particular records pertaining to several DOC employees. He sought photographs, addresses, incomes, retirement and disability information, administrative grievances or internal investigations, and any other related documents. The DOC employees responded by filing a lawsuit to enjoin the release of these records.
¶ 10 Under the PRA, RCW 42.56.540, persons named in a request for records or to whom the requested record specifically pertains, may enjoin the release of such records. The superior court may issue an injunction if “examination would clearly not be in the public interest and would substantially and irreparably damage any person....” RCW 42.56.540. Mr. Parmelee was not joined in the injunction action, and he challenges the failure to join him.
¶ 11 Here, the core issue in Mr. Parmelee's case is whether the requester of public documents (records) pursuant to the PRA is an indispensable party to an action brought under RCW 42.56.540 seeking to enjoin disclosure of those records. The civil rules provide for the joinder of parties in an action. CR 19 pertains to mandatory joinder. CR 19 provides in relevant part: “(a) ... A person ... shall be joined as a party in the action if ... (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (A) as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest....” Our cases have recognized, as helpful, a two-part inquiry for making this determination. Gildon v. Simon Prop. Group, Inc., 158 Wash.2d 483, 494-95, 145 P.3d 1196 (2006).
¶ 12 First, we determine whether a party is needed for just adjudication. To determine whether a party is necessary, CR 19 requires the potentially necessary party to have an interest relating to the subject of the action. Once such an interest is established, the party must be “so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (A) as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest....” CR 19(a)(2)(A) (emphasis added). Use of the term may suggests a low standard that requires a showing of possibility that the failure to join will impair or impede the party's interest. If the interested party is necessary and is “subject to service of process and [his or her] joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action,” the party in the action “ shall be joined ” by the court if feasible. CR 19 (emphasis added).
¶ 13 Second, where an absent party is necessary but it is impossible to join the party, then the court determines whether in equity and good conscience the action should proceed with the parties before it and without the necessary party. If not, the absent necessary party is indispensable. Generally, under CR 19, where a necessary party was not joined in an action, the proceedings are subject to challenge and a decision will be overturned where the judgment was not in favor of the absent party or where another party is prejudiced by the absence. Geroux v. Fleck, 33 Wash.App. 424, 655 P.2d 254 (1982).
¶ 14 Here, Mr. Parmelee argues his joinder in the injunction proceeding was mandatory under CR 19.2 Mr. Parmelee's argument is most accurately stated as follows: he should have been joined in the injunction...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Neighborhood Alliance of Spokane County v. County of Spokane
...PRA request?ANALYSIS ¶ 17 The PRA is a strongly worded mandate for broad disclosure of public records. Burt v. Dep't of Corr., 168 Wash.2d 828, 832, 231 P.3d 191 (2010) (quoting Soter v. Cowles Publ'g Co., 162 Wash.2d 716, 731, 174 P.3d 60 (2007)). Passed by popular initiative, it stands fo......
-
Auto. United Trades Org. v. State
...of individual cases.” 7 Wright, Miller & Kane, supra, § 1604, at 39, quoted in Burt v. Wash. State Dep't of Corr., 168 Wash.2d 828, 842, 231 P.3d 191 (2010) (Alexander, J., dissenting). ¶ 35 As with all equitable standards, the proper application of CR 19(b) involves a careful exercise of d......
-
Cedar Grove Composting, Inc. v. City of Marysville
...request, something not at issue in this case. It does not prescribe rules for standing to bring a lawsuit.¶ 28 Finally, citing Burt v. Department of Corrections,29 the City claims that CR 19 makes a person requesting records an indispensable party to a PRA lawsuit. We disagree. In Burt. Dep......
-
Delong v. Parmalee, 35469-1 -II
...documents under the PRA in light oftheir limited rights following incarceration. See Burt v. Washington State Dep't of Corr., _Wn.2d_, 231 P.3d 191 (2010); Livingston, 164 Wn.2d at 50; Sappenfield v. Dep't of Corr., 127 Wn. App. 83, 110 P.3d 808 (2005), review denied, 156 Wn.2d 1013 (2006).......
-
Table of Cases
...review denied, 154 Wn.2d 1030 (2005): 6.7(1)(a), 6.7(3)(a), 7.2(1), 7.3(4), 18.4(2)(b) Burt v. State Dep't of Corr., 168 Wn.2d 828, 231 P.3d 191 (2010): 2.2(3), 5.2(2), 6.3(1)(a), 6.5(6), 7.2, 13.4, 13.5, 17.3(1)(b), 18.4(4) C_________________________________________________________________......
-
§18.4 Attorney Fees
...when a party successfully dissolved a wrongful injunction, the court in Burt v. State Department of Corrections, 168 Wn.2d 828, 838, 231 P.3d 191 (2010), held that it was premature to award fees and costs based on equity because it had not determined the dissolved injunction was wrongful, b......
-
§21.6 Analysis
...624, 161 P.3d 486 (2007), review denied, 168 Wn.2d 1020, cert, denied, 555 U.S. 881 (2008); see Burt v. State Dep't of Com, 168 Wn.2d 828, 231 P.3d 191 (2010); see also CR 12(b) (7). However, the court should give a plaintiff the opportunity to add an indispensable party before dismissing t......
-
§19.6 Analysis
...As described below, Washington courts engage in a two-part inquiry under CR 19. Burt v. Wash. State Dep't of Corn, 168 Wn.2d 828, 833, 231 P.3d 191 (1)Joinder of parties needed for just adjudication The first step in a CR 19 analysis is to determine whether a party is needed for just adjudi......