Guillen v. Pierce County, No. 68535-5.
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
| Writing for the Court | BRIDGE, J. |
| Citation | 144 Wash.2d 696,31 P.3d 628 |
| Parties | Ignacio GUILLEN, as legal guardian for Jennifer Guillen and Alma Guillen, minors; and Mariano Guillen, as legal guardian for Paulina Guillen and Fatima Guillen, Respondents, v. PIERCE COUNTY, a municipal corporation, Petitioner. The Estate of Clementina Guillen-Alejandre, Defendant, Robert and LuAnn Whitmer, husband and wife, individually, and as the guardians of Shanna Whitmer, a minor, Hannah Whitmer, a minor, and Denel Whitmer, an incapacitated person, Respondents, v. Chin S. Yuk and "Jane Doe" Yuk, husband and wife, and the marital community composed thereof, and Chang Choi and "Jane Doe" Choi, husband and wife, and the community composed thereof; City of Lakewood, a municipal corporation; Pierce County, a municipal corporation; and the City of Tacoma, a municipal corporation, Petitioners. |
| Docket Number | No. 68535-5. |
| Decision Date | 13 September 2001 |
31 P.3d 628
144 Wash.2d 696
v.
PIERCE COUNTY, a municipal corporation, Petitioner.
The Estate of Clementina Guillen-Alejandre, Defendant,
Robert and LuAnn Whitmer, husband and wife, individually, and as the guardians of Shanna Whitmer, a minor, Hannah Whitmer, a minor, and Denel Whitmer, an incapacitated person, Respondents,
v.
Chin S. Yuk and "Jane Doe" Yuk, husband and wife, and the marital community composed thereof, and Chang Choi and "Jane Doe" Choi, husband and wife, and the community composed thereof; City of Lakewood, a municipal corporation; Pierce County, a municipal corporation; and the City of Tacoma, a municipal corporation, Petitioners
No. 68535-5.
Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.
Argued November 14, 2000.
Decided September 13, 2001.
Salvador Mungia, Darrell Cochran, Tacoma, Juliana Burnett, Bellevue, David DeWolf, Spokane, for Respondents.
William Cameron, Tacoma, Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Washington State Assn of Municipal Attorneys.
E. Bronson Potter, Vancouver, Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Association of Prosecuting.
Christine Gregoire, Attorney General, William Williams and Michael Taradif, Assists., Olympia, Amicus Curiae on Behalf of State of Washington.
Debra Stephens, Bryan Harnetiaux, Gary Bloom, Spokane, Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Washington State Trial Lawyers Assoc.
The respondents in these consolidated cases seek access to accident reports and other materials and data held by the local government petitioners relating to the traffic history of the sites of their subject car accidents. Petitioners claim that all accident reports are nondiscoverable, since RCW 46.52.080 declares them "confidential" and inadmissible. Petitioners also contend that all the materials and data at issue are privileged under 23 U.S.C. § 409—and consequently also exempt from public disclosure
While RCW 46.52.080 exempts accident reports prepared by persons involved in accidents from public disclosure or admission as evidence in certain trials, we hold that they remain discoverable. Furthermore, we hold that Congress' 1995 amendment to 23 U.S.C. § 409 violates the United States Constitution's federalist design as defined by its framers and by the United States Supreme Court, insofar as it makes state and local traffic and accident materials and data nondiscoverable and inadmissible in state and local courts, simply because they are also "collected" and used for federal purposes. We hold that only materials and data originally created for the statutorily identified federal purposes are lawfully covered by the federal privilege and, thus, exempt from public disclosure under RCW 42.17.310(j). Because there are insufficient facts in the record to apply this standard to all of the disputed items in these consolidated cases, we vacate the lower courts' rulings and remand for supplementation of the record and further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
FACTS
Guillen
On July 5, 1996, Ignacio Guillen's wife, Clementina Guillen-Alejandre, was killed and her passengers injured in an automobile collision at the intersection of 168th Street East and B Street East, in Pierce County. Months earlier, on May 11, 1995, based on traffic and accident reports and data in its possession, Pierce County had identified this intersection as especially hazardous and applied for federal hazard elimination funds under 23 U.S.C. § 152. That application was denied. The County then reapplied on April 3, 1996, and on July 26, 1996, three weeks after Guillen-Alejandre's fatal accident, the application was granted.
A letter dated August 16, 1996, was sent on Guillen's behalf to the County's Risk Management Department, requesting materials and data relating to the intersection's accident history. The county prosecuting attorney's office denied the request in a letter dated September 9, 1996, claiming the history was privileged under 23 U.S.C. § 409 and RCW 42.17.310(j). In a letter dated October 28, 1996, counsel for Guillen clarified his request: "I want to make the record clear that we are not seeking any reports that were specifically written for developing any safety construction improvement project at the intersection at issue." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 93.
However, on behalf of our clients, we are seeking a copy of all documents that record the accident history of the intersection that may have been used in the preparation of any such reports. In other words, we are simply seeking information as to when accidents have occurred at the intersection for the last ten years. This would include any documents that record (1) the date of any such accidents, (2) the parties involved at each such accident, (3) the date of each such accident [sic], (4) fatalities, if any, at each such accident, (5) the identification of all known accidents [sic] at each such accident, (6) copies of photographs taken at each such accident, (7) the configuration of the intersection (what traffic signs existed) at the time of each such intersection [sic], and (8) documents recording traffic counts at the intersection.
Obviously, the documents we are requesting would not contain any opinions by Pierce County representatives as to the safety of the intersection. Instead, we are seeking documents pertaining to facts.
A. Public Disclosure Request: On December 9, 1996, Guillen challenged that denial of access in Pierce County Superior Court in a complaint filed under RCW 42.17.340 of the public disclosure act (PDA). The County moved for summary judgment under 23 U.S.C. § 409 and RCW 42.17.310(j). Guillen filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The trial court denied the County's motion, but granted Guillen's cross-motion, ordering the County to pay attorney fees under RCW 42.17.340(4) and to disclose the following materials:
1. Motor vehicle traffic accidents by location—County of Pierce—prepared by Records Section, Washington State Patrol [WSP], 1/90-6/30/96.
. . .
10. Collision diagram dated 1/5/89 prepared by Georgia Fischer.
11. Collision diagram dated 7/18/88 prepared by Georgia Fischer.
. . .
13. Police Traffic Collision Reports and Motor Vehicle Reports from 1/1/90 prepared by [various] law enforcement agencies.
. . .
15. Draft letter to Barbara Gelman from Frederick L. Anderson with note to file signed by Jim Ellison on 3/6/89.
CP at 20-21.1 The County sought appellate review of the trial court's PDA ruling.2
B. Civil Discovery Request: While that appeal was still pending, Guillen filed a separate tort action in Pierce County Superior Court, claiming that the County's failure to install proper traffic controls at the intersection was a negligent proximate cause of his wife's death. When the County responded to his interrogatories by invoking 23
1. The identity of all employees, agents, or officials of Defendant Pierce County who have knowledge of automobile accidents taking place at the intersection at issue for the time period January 1, 1990 through July 4, 1996;
2. The identity of all persons within Pierce County's knowledge who have been involved in automobile accidents at the intersection at issue for the time period of January 1, 1990 through July 5, 1996;
3. The identity of all Pierce County deputy sheriffs who patrolled the intersection at issue during the time frame of January 1, 1990 through July 4, 1996;
4. The date, identity of all persons involved, and the identity of all fatalities for each automobile accident occurring at the intersection at issue for the time period of January 1, 1990 through July 5, 1996;
5. A copy of all photographs[] Pierce County has in its possession, control or custody of accidents involving at least one automobile at the intersection at issue from January 1, 1990 through July 6, 1996;
6. A copy of all written statements by witnesses to accidents at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Perez, 2005-2364.
...(Ky.1997), 956 S.W.2d 210, 212; Ballensky v. Flattum-Riemers, 2006 N.D. 127, 716 N.W.2d 110, ¶ 26; Guillen v. Pierce Cty. (2001), 144 Wash.2d 696, 716, 31 P.3d 628, fn. 1, reversed on other grounds, Pierce Cty., Washington v. Guillen, 537 U.S. 129, 123 S.Ct. 720, 154 L.Ed.2d 610. {¶ 122} Be......
-
State v. Rice, 85893–4.
...[174 Wash.2d 901]is “for the protection of individuals” against centralized authority and abuses of power. Guillen v. Pierce County, 144 Wash.2d 696, 731, 31 P.3d 628 (2001) (quoting New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 181, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992)), rev'd on other ground......
-
Sharbono v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., 33379-1-II.
...of establishing that the court abused its discretion by failing to apply RCW 5.60.070(1). See Guillen v. Pierce 161 P.3d 425 County, 144 Wash.2d 696, 716, 31 P.3d 628 (2001) (the burden of showing that a privilege applies in any given situation rests entirely upon the party asserting the pr......
-
Soter v. Cowles Pub. Co., 78574-1.
...under the civil rules of pretrial discovery are also exempt from public disclosure under RCW 42.56.290. Guillen v. Pierce County, 144 Wash.2d 696, 713, 31 P.3d 628 (2001), rev'd on other grounds, Pierce County v. Guillen, 537 U.S. 129, 123 S.Ct. 720, 154 L.Ed.2d 610 (2003); Limstrom v. Lade......
-
State v. Rice, No. 85893–4.
...[174 Wash.2d 901]is “for the protection of individuals” against centralized authority and abuses of power. Guillen v. Pierce County, 144 Wash.2d 696, 731, 31 P.3d 628 (2001) (quoting New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 181, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992)), rev'd on other ground......
-
Sharbono v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co., No. 33379-1-II.
...of establishing that the court abused its discretion by failing to apply RCW 5.60.070(1). See Guillen v. Pierce 161 P.3d 425 County, 144 Wash.2d 696, 716, 31 P.3d 628 (2001) (the burden of showing that a privilege applies in any given situation rests entirely upon the party asserting the pr......
-
State v. Perez, No. 2005-2364.
...(Ky.1997), 956 S.W.2d 210, 212; Ballensky v. Flattum-Riemers, 2006 N.D. 127, 716 N.W.2d 110, ¶ 26; Guillen v. Pierce Cty. (2001), 144 Wash.2d 696, 716, 31 P.3d 628, fn. 1, reversed on other grounds, Pierce Cty., Washington v. Guillen, 537 U.S. 129, 123 S.Ct. 720, 154 L.Ed.2d 610. {¶ 122} Be......
-
Soter v. Cowles Pub. Co., No. 78574-1.
...under the civil rules of pretrial discovery are also exempt from public disclosure under RCW 42.56.290. Guillen v. Pierce County, 144 Wash.2d 696, 713, 31 P.3d 628 (2001), rev'd on other grounds, Pierce County v. Guillen, 537 U.S. 129, 123 S.Ct. 720, 154 L.Ed.2d 610 (2003); Limstrom v. Lade......