O'CONNOR v. DSHS
| Decision Date | 21 June 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 69177-1.,69177-1. |
| Citation | 25 P.3d 426,143 Wash.2d 895 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | Kathleen O'CONNOR, individually, and as guardian ad litem for Dustin O'Connor, a minor, Petitioner, v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, an agency of the State of Washington, Respondent. |
Marler & Clark, Denis Wayne Stearns, Bruce T. Clark, William Marler, Seattle, for Petitioner.
Honorable Christine Gregoire, Attorney General, John Joseph Kirschner, Asst., Seattle, Michael Patrick Lynch, Asst., Olympia, Narda Pierce, Solicitor General, Olympia, for Respondent.
Greg Overstreet, Olympia, Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Building Association of Washington.
Aaron Hugh Caplan, Seattle, Amicus Curiae on Behalf of American Civil Liberties Union.
Davis, Wright & Tremaine, Michael John Killeen, Alison Page Howard, Seattle, Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Allied Daily Newspapers.
Jeanne A. Brown, Olympia, Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Evergreen Freedom Foundation.
Larry Dean Stout, Olympia, Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Washington Association of Realtors.
Daniel Nicholas Fazio, Olympia, Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Washington State Farm Bureau. Honorable Norm Maleng, King County Prosecutor, Oma Lynn Lamothe, Deputy, Seattle, Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.
Bryan Harnetiaux, Debra Leigh Stephens, Spokane, Stephen Kirk Festor, Stephen Kolden Strong, Seattle, Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Washington State Trial Lawyers Association.
Petitioner Kathleen O'Connor seeks direct review of orders of the King County Superior Court denying her request for public records under the Public Records Act from Respondent Washington State Department of Social and Health Services and the Attorney General's Office and directing Petitioner to seek records under the Superior Court Civil Rules for discovery. We granted review. We reverse.
The question presented in this case is whether the trial court properly required litigants against the Department of Social and Health Services to obtain public records from the agency only under discovery provisions of the Civil Rules for Superior Court instead of under the Public Records Act, RCW 42.17.250-.348.
On June 28, 1999 Petitioner Kathleen O'Connor, individually and as guardian ad litem for her son, Dustin O'Connor (Petitioner) filed a summons and complaint in the King County Superior Court against Respondent Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS).1 The complaint asserts that Dustin O'Connor, then 15 years old, was molested and abused by Kevin Keo, an employee of DSHS, at the Indian Ridge Juvenile Corrections Facility in Snohomish County, Washington during the spring and summer of 1997.2
On December 10, 1999 counsel for Petitioner sent a letter addressed to John Kirschner, Assistant Attorney General, requesting under the Public Records Act, RCW 42.17.260, public records of DSHS and "all applicable subsidiary agencies, divisions, or departments within jurisdictions of DSHS...."3 On December 13, 1999 Mr. Kirschner by letter denied Petitioner's public records request.4 He stated "[a]s this matter is in litigation, the Superior Court Civil Rules apply, not the Public Records Act."5 On December 14, 1999 Petitioner's counsel responded to Mr. Kirschner's letter indicating the denial letter should have cited a specific exemption under the statute and given a brief explanation for denying the public records request.6 On December 21, 1999 Mr. Kirschner replied indicating the request for public records was denied because "the public records act was not intended to be used as a discovery tool for pretrial discovery" as indicated in a case previously cited by Petitioner's counsel.7 On December 27, 1999 Petitioner's counsel responded to Mr. Kirschner's letter stating that DSHS had not identified a specific exemption authorizing withholding of the public records.8
On January 4, 2000 Respondent filed in the King County Superior Court a "Motion For Protective Order" under Civil Rule 26(c).9 The motion stated in part:
/s/ John Kirschner, WSBA # 569510
On January 6, 2000 Petitioner filed "Plaintiff's Opposition To Defendant's Motion For Protective Order And Cross Motion To Compel And For Mandatory Attorney's Fees."11 On January 12, 2000 Respondent filed a reply.12 On January 13, 2000 Petitioner filed a reply.13
On January 14, 2000, after a hearing on the motions, Judge Donald D. Haley, King County Superior Court, signed an order which read:
/s/ Donald D. Haley14
On January 6, 2000 counsel for Petitioner sent a letter addressed to the Public Information Officer of the Attorney General's Office requesting public records concerning DSHS under the Public Records Act, RCW 42.17.250.15 The Public Records Information Officer, Ms. Marian Graham, on January 14, 2000 wrote acknowledging the request, indicating she believed she would be able to respond to it within 10 business days.16 On February 15, 2000 Ms. Graham wrote another letter postponing her response until February 22, 2000.17 On February 23, 2000 she wrote that she had been made aware of the January 14, 2000 court order directing Petitioner not to submit further public records act requests and ordering Petitioner to use the Superior Court Civil Rules for discovery in this litigation, and that she (Ms. Graham) would thus not provide the records requested on January 6, 2000.18
On February 24, 2000 counsel for Petitioner responded to Ms. Graham's letter stating he was not aware the January 14, 2000 Superior Court order applied to their January 6, 2000 Public Records Act request.19 He then stated "this letter is my formal request that the attorney general review your denial of this request for public records as provided for by RCW 42.17.325."20 On March 10, 2000 Jeffrey C.C. Lane, Senior Assistant Attorney General, denied the request.21
On March 6, 2000 Respondent DSHS filed a "Supplemental Motion To Quash Public Records Act Request For Review Of Denial Of Request And Motion For Contempt" in response to Petitioner's public records request to the Attorney General's Office. The motion provided in part:
/s/ John Kirschner, WSBA # 569522
On March 13, 2000 Petitioner filed "Plaintiff's Opposition To Supplemental Motion To Quash And Motion For Contempt," arguing that the court's order prohibited her from using the Act to obtain public records from DSHS, but it did not prohibit her from using the Act to obtain public records from other public agencies.23
On March 17, 2000, after a hearing on the motions, Judge Haley signed the following order:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Neighborhood Alliance of Spokane County v. County of Spokane
...helpful in construing” the PRA. Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe, 90 Wash.2d 123, 128, 580 P.2d 246 (1978); see O'Connor v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 143 Wash.2d 895, 907, 25 P.3d 426 (2001) (cases interpreting FOIA are often considered when interpreting the state act); Limstrom v. Ladenburg, 136......
-
Soter v. Cowles Pub. Co.
...discovery, which will include some documents also covered by the attorney-client privilege."); O'Connor v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 143 Wash.2d 895, 909, 25 P.3d 426 (2001) (civil rules govern discovery of any matter not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved). T......
-
Fisher Broadcasting-Seattle TV LLC v. City of Seattle
...videos, see Rules of Criminal Procedure (CrR) 4.7) are not exempt from disclosure under the PRA. O'Connor v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 143 Wash.2d 895, 910, 25 P.3d 426 (2001); id. at 913, 25 P.3d 426 (Chambers, J., concurring). This also undermines the notion that RCW 9.73.090(1)(c) w......
-
Neighborhood Alliance of Spokane Cnty. v. Cnty. of Spokane
...helpful in construing" the PRA. Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe, 90 Wn.2d 123, 128, 580 P.2d 246 (1978); see O'Connor v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 143 Wn.2d 895, 907, 25 P.3d 426 (2001) (cases interpreting FOIA are often considered when interpreting the state act); Limstrom v. Ladenburg, 136 Wn.......