City of Lakewood v. Koenig
| Decision Date | 11 December 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 89648–8.,89648–8. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | CITY OF LAKEWOOD, A Municipal Corporation of the State of Washington, Petitioner, v. David KOENIG, individually, Respondent. |
Matthew S. Kaser, City of Lakewood, Lakewood, WA, for Petitioner.
William John Crittenden, Attorney at Law, Seattle, WA, for Respondent.
Daniel Brian Heid, Auburn, WA, Steven L. Gross, Attorney at Law, Port Townsend, WA, Kathleen J. Haggard, Porter Foster Rorick LLP, Seattle, WA, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington State Association of Municipal Attorneys.
Ramsey E. Ramerman, City of Everett, Everett, WA, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington Association of Public Records Officers.
Michele Lynn Earl–Hubbard, Allied Law Group LLC, Seattle, WA, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington.
Michele Lynn Earl–Hubbard, Allied Law Group LLC, Seattle, WA, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington Newspapers Publishers Association.
Michele Lynn Earl–Hubbard, Allied Law Group LLC, Seattle, WA, for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington COAlition for Open Government.
¶ 1 Our Public Records Act (PRA), chapter 42.56 RCW, provides attorney fees to those who must resort to the courts to vindicate either their right to inspect public records or their right to receive a response to a records request. An agency violates a requestor's right to receive a response when it withholds or redacts public records without articulating a specific applicable exemption and providing a “brief explanation of how the exemption applies to the record withheld.” RCW 42.56.210(3). We are asked to decide whether the city of Lakewood's explanation for redacting driver's license numbers from records produced for David Koenig was inadequate and, if so, whether Koenig is entitled to attorney fees. We hold that the city's response was inadequate and Koenig is entitled to fees.
¶ 2 In October 2007, Koenig requested three sets of records from the city of Lakewood. He requested (1) records about the arrest and prosecution of a Lakewood police detective in January 2005 for patronizing a prostitute; (2) records about a November 2006 auto accident in the city of Fife, where a Fife police officer struck a pedestrian with his patrol car and the Lakewood Police Department assisted with the investigation; and (3) records about Tacoma police officer Michael Justice's 1998 arrest and subsequent prosecution on fourth degree assault charges.
¶ 3 In November 2007, the city advised Koenig by letter that responsive records were available for review and pickup. The city redacted, among other things, driver's license numbers from various types of documents it produced. The city justified the redaction of driver's license numbers by citation to statutes:
Clerk's Papers (CP) at 75–76. The city's letter advised Koenig: “[U]nless you have notified the City—in writing—by the close of business on December 21, 2007, that its response satisfies your requests, the City is prepared to take appropriate legal action to determine that it has fully complied with each of these requests.” Id. at 77.
¶ 4 Koenig questioned the city's reliance on the statutes it cited. Among other things, Koenig asked the city to specify which exemption it claimed under RCW 42.56.2401 and to clarify whether it was also claiming driver's license numbers were exempt under the Federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994 (FDPPA), 18 U.S.C. § 2721, and Reno v. Condon,
528 U.S. 141, 120 S.Ct. 666, 145 L.Ed.2d 587 (2000).2
¶ 5 In a response letter dated February 25, 2008, the city supplemented the basis for its redaction of driver's license numbers to include the FDPPA and Reno, 528 U.S. 141, 120 S.Ct. 666. The city said that it redacted witness and victim dates of birth pursuant to RCW 42.56.240(2) because “the date of birth together with a name has the potential to link a particular individual with a particular identity thus creating the potential to endanger an individual's life, physical safety or property.” CP at 87–88. But the city declined to explain how RCW 42.56.240 or the other statutes it cited applied to the driver's license numbers: “Given what should be the self-evident nature of redacting an individual's driver's license number, we decline your invitation to provide further and unnecessary explanation.” Id. at 88. The city again warned it was “prepared to prosecute a declaratory judgment action decreeing that it [had] fully complied with [Koenig's] requests.”Id. at 89 (citing Soter v. Cowles Publ'g Co., 162 Wash.2d 716, 174 P.3d 60 (2007) ).3
¶ 6 The city filed suit and moved for summary judgment.4 Koenig filed a cross motion for summary judgment and argued the city had not met its burden to show the driver's license numbers were properly redacted under a specific exemption and the city also violated the PRA by failing to explain why driver's license numbers are exempt. Koenig argued he was entitled to attorney fees under RCW 42.56.550(4) for the violation of the brief explanation requirement regardless of whether the numbers were ruled exempt.
¶ 7 The trial court granted the city's summary judgment motion, denied Koenig's motion, and ruled that Koenig's claim against the city for violating the PRA by failing to provide a brief explanation was not a valid basis for liability. CP at 228–30 (Order on Cross Motions for Summary Judgment). Koenig appealed on the brief explanation issue. The Court of Appeals held the city violated the brief explanation requirement and Koenig was entitled to attorney costs and fees. City of Lakewood v. Koenig, 176 Wash.App. 397, 309 P.3d 610 (2013). We granted the city's petition for review. City of Lakewood v. Koenig, 179 Wash.2d 1022, 320 P.3d 719 (2014).
¶ 8 The primary purpose of the PRA is to provide broad access to public records to ensure government accountability. Livingston v. Cedeno, 164 Wash.2d 46, 52, 186 P.3d 1055 (2008). The legislature stated clearly that the people “do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.” LAWS OF 1992, ch. 139, § 2 (codified at RCW 42.56.030 ). The PRA contains no general exemptions from disclosure to protect individual privacy or vital government functions. Progressive Animal Welfare Soc. v. University of Washington, 125 Wash.2d 243, 258, 884 P.2d 592 (1994) (PAWS II ) (citing In re Rosier, 105 Wash.2d 606, 621, 717 P.2d 1353 (1986) (Anderson, J., dissenting in part, concurring in part)). Rather, the legislature has crafted exemptions that are “narrowly tailored to specific situations in which privacy rights or vital governmental interests require protection.”
Resident Action Council v. Seattle Hous. Auth., 177 Wash.2d 417, 434, 327 P.3d 600 (2013) (emphasis added). The PRA also provides that other statutes can exempt information from the disclosure mandates of the PRA. RCW 42.56.070(1).
¶ 9 Consistent with its purpose of disclosure, the PRA directs that its exemptions must be narrowly construed, RCW 42.56.030, and that “an agency must produce otherwise exempt records insofar as redaction renders any and all exemptions inapplicable.” Resident Action Council, 177 Wash.2d at 433, 327 P.3d 600 (citing PAWS II, 125 Wash.2d at 261, 884 P.2d 592); see RCW 42.56.210(1), .070. When an agency withholds or redacts records, its response “shall include a statement of the specific exemption authorizing the withholding of the record (or part) and a brief explanation of how the exemption applies to the record withheld.” RCW 42.56.210(3) ; see PAWS II, 125 Wash.2d at 270, 884 P.2d 592. The purpose of the requirement is to inform the requester why the documents are being withheld and provide for meaningful judicial review of agency action, See PAWS II, 125 Wash.2d at 270, 884 P.2d 592; Sanders v. State, 169 Wash.2d 827, 846, 240 P.3d 120 (2010) ().5
¶ 10 The plain language of RCW 42.56.210(3) and our cases interpreting it are clear that an agency must identify “ ‘with particularity ’ ” the specific record or information being withheld and the specific exemption authorizing the withholding. Rental Hous. Ass'n of Puget Sound v. City of Des Moines, 165 Wash.2d 525, 537–38, 199 P.3d 393 (2009) (emphasis added) (quoting PAWS II, 125 Wash.2d at 271, 884 P.2d 592); see also
II, 125 Wash.2d at 271 n. 18, 884 P.2d 592. In Rental Housing, for example, we concluded the city did not state a proper claim of exemption to trigger the PRA's one-year statute of limitations where its response letter generally characterized withheld documents but did not “specifically describ[e] each withheld individual document and the basis for withholding each document.” 165 Wash.2d at 529, 541, 199 P.3d 393. Additionally, the agency must provide sufficient explanatory information for requestors to determine whether the exemptions are properly invoked.
Rental Hous., 165 Wash.2d at 539, 199 P.3d 393 (quoting WAC 44–14–04004(4)(b)(ii) ); see also Sanders, 169 Wash.2d at 846, 240 P.3d 120.
¶ 11 We find the city's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wash. Pub. Emps. Ass'n v. Wash. State Ctr. for Childhood Deafness & Hearing
Loss
...information, the disclosure of which can put citizens at risk for identity theft and other problems." City of Lakewood v. Koenig, 182 Wash.2d 87, 99 n.7, 343 P.3d 335 (2014). I concur with the dissent that article I, section 7 of our state constitution protects an individual's right to nond......
-
Doe v. Dep't of Corr.
...primary purpose of the PRA is to provide broad access to public records to ensure government accountability." City of Lakewood v. Koenig , 182 Wash.2d 87, 93, 343 P.3d 335 (2014). An agency must disclose responsive public records "unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of [t......
-
Doe v. Pierce Cnty.
..., which she claims stands for the rule that an agency must explain its exemptions at the outset, in response to a request. 182 Wash.2d 87, 343 P.3d 335 (2014). But reliance on Koenig assumes that the agency redacted or withheld records in response to a request; here, PCSD had not yet finish......
-
In re Adams
...of the record (or part) and a brief explanation of how the exemption applies to the record withheld.’ ” City of Lakewood v. Koenig,182 Wash.2d 87, 94, 343 P.3d 335 (2014)(quoting RCW 42.56.210(3)). “The purpose of the requirement is to inform the requester why the documents are being withhe......