Hood v. S. Whidbey Sch. Dist.
| Decision Date | 06 September 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 73165-3-I,73165-3-I |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | ERIC HOOD, an individual, Appellant, v. SOUTH WHIDBEY SCHOOL DISTRICT, a public agency, Respondent. |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
TRICKEY, J. — Eric Hood sued the South Whidbey School District under the Public Records Act, chapter 42.56 RCW. With the parties consent, the trial court conducted a hearing in this case on the basis of documentary evidence. The trial court concluded that Hood was entitled to a penalty award of $7,150 for the District's untimely production of certain documents.1 It rejected Hood's other claims.2 The court also concluded that Hood was entitled to $5,309.95 in attorney fees and costs.3
Hood appeals the underlying judgment and the award of attorney fees. He argues that the trial court erred when it determined that the District's search for responsive records was reasonable, penalized the District "only for untimely disclosures while ignoring other violations," denied his proposed groupings for penalties, erroneously applied mitigating and aggravating factors to its penaltycalculations, and erroneously calculated the penalty period.4 He also claims that the trial court should have granted all of his requested attorney fees.
Based on our de novo review, we conclude that the trial court did not err except when it calculated Hood's award of attorney fees and costs. Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
FACTS
Hood worked as a teacher for the District from 1996 to 2010.5 In 2010, the District decided not to renew Hood's teaching contract.6 Through his union, Hood challenged the decision in binding arbitration.7 An arbitrator upheld the District's non-renewal decision.8 Hood subsequently filed multiple lawsuits against the District in federal court.9 Hood also made numerous public records requests of the District under the Public Records Act (PRA).10 The District's responses to those requests are the subject of this lawsuit.
Hood began requesting public records from the District in June 2011.11 That year, Hood requested records on June 16, July 1, July 7, July 10, and July 14.12 By August 5, Hood had made 25 different requests.13 Hood made additional record requests on August 18 and November 1 of that year.14
Hood continued requesting records from the District over the next few years. In 2012, Hood requested records on June 19, September 11, October 4, October 10, October 16, October 18, and November 15.15 In 2013, Hood requested records on January 24 and January 28.16 In 2014, Hood requested records on January 30.17 In total, Hood made approximately 37 requests for records.18
During this same time period, Hood also requested public documents from several other entities, including the Arlington School District, the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Washington State Attorney General's Office, the Washington State Auditor's Office, the Coupeville School District, and the Washington Schools Risk Management Pool.19
Many of Hood's requests for records were very broad in scope.20 Essentially, Hood requested any record of any kind having anything to do with him from 1999 to 2014.21 For example, a request on July 10, 2011 sought "[a]ny records about [Hood] made by any current or former district administrators and/or board members dating from September 1999 to the present."22 Similarly, a request on November 1, 2011 sought "all District records about, mentioning, referring to, or regarding [Hood] or any member of his family from July 5, 2011 to the present and, if any exist, any previously undisclosed records about, mentioning, referringto, associated with or regarding either [Hood] or his non-renewal or both dating from September 1999 to the present."23
The District responded to Hood's requests on a regular basis. For example, in 2011, the District responded on June 17, July 5, July 9, July 12, July 20, July 28, August 5, August 17, August 22, September 6, September 7, September 9, September 14, September 20, October 14, November 7, December 14, and December 21.24 In 2012, the District responded on January 2, June 21, September 11, September 26, October 12, October 22, October 23, October 31, November 3, November 8, November 19, November 20, November 27, November 29, December 12, and December 19.25 In 2013, the District responded on January 25, January 31, February 5, February 14, February 20, March 12, March 14, March 25, and May 2.26 In 2014, the District responded on February 5, February 14, February 20, February 28, March 12, and March 14.27 Hood and the District exchanged e-mails during these time frames as well.
The District provided thousands of records in response to Hood's requests.28 In 2011, the District provided records on July 20, July 27, August 16, August 31, September 7, September 20, October 14, and December 16.29 In 2012, the District provided records January 2, June 21, September 11, October 9, October 16, November 13, November 27, November 29, December 12, andDecember 18.30 In 2013, the District provided records on January 22, January 25, and May 2.31 In 2014, the District provided records on February 5, February 28, and March 14.32
In June 2012, Hood commenced this action against the District in Island County Superior Court.33 Among other things, Hood alleged that the District violated the PRA when it responded to his July 2011 record requests.34 In August 2013, Hood filed an amended complaint against the District alleging many additional violations of the PRA when it responded to his later requests.35
In March 2014, Hood moved for summary judgment.36 He argued that the District violated the PRA in numerous ways when it responded to his requests from June 2011, July 2011, November 1, 2011, June 19, 2012, September 11, 2012, October 10, 2012, October 16, 2012, October 18, 2012, November 15, 2012, January 24, 2013, and January 28, 2013.37 He proposed grouping the violations into nine different groups, and he sought a total penalty award of $390,795.38 With his motion, Hood submitted affidavits from himself and from his attorney.39
The District responded and argued that its searches were reasonable, that Hood's allegations were speculative, insufficient, and meritless, and that Hood'srequest for $390,000 in penalties was unsupportable.40 With its response, the District submitted declarations from several District employees and attorneys.
On June 27, 2014, the matter proceeded to a hearing.41 The parties agreed that the hearing on the merits could be conducted on the basis of affidavits pursuant to RCW 42.56.550(3).42 Thus, with the parties' consent, the court conducted a trial on the basis of the submitted papers.43 The court explicitly stated that it "balanced and weighed the evidence" and "resolved all material factual issues and issues of credibility, as it would if it had heard oral testimony."44
On September 15, 2014, the trial court issued its memorandum decision.45 It determined that Hood was entitled to penalty award of $4,890 for the District's untimely production of documents in response to Hood's June 2011 requests and Hood's July 2011 requests.46 It also determined that Hood was entitled to a penalty award of $2,260 for the District's untimely production of documents in response to Hood's November 1, 2011 request.47 It rejected the remainder of Hood's claims.48
On December 15, 2014, the trial court entered comprehensive findings of fact and conclusions of law.49 It also entered final judgment, which granted Hood'smotion for judgment in part, awarded Hood $7,150, and dismissed all other claims with prejudice.50
Hood subsequently moved for reconsideration.51 He claimed that the discovery of five additional e-mails constituted newly discovered evidence establishing that the District's searches in response to Hood's July and November 2011 requests were not reasonable.52 In a written decision, the court rejected these arguments and denied Hood's motion.53 It entered an order denying reconsideration.54
Hood moved for attorney fees and costs.55 In March 2015, the trial court entered its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order on this motion.56 The trial court concluded that Hood was entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs, but it declined to award Hood his full requested amount.57 It reduced the amount of attorney fees requested by 50 percent and awarded Hood $5,309.95.58
Hood appeals.
ANALYSIS
The PRA "is a strongly worded mandate for broad disclosure of public records." Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe, 90 Wn.2d 123, 127, 580 P.2d 246 (1978). The purpose of the act is "'nothing less than the preservation of the most central tenetsof representative government, namely, the sovereignty of the people and the accountability to the people of public officials and institutions.'" Wade's Eastside Gun Shop, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 185 Wn.2d 270, 277, 372 P.3d 97 (2016) (quoting Progressive Animal Welfare Soc. v. Univ. of Wash., 125 Wn.2d 243, 251, 884 P.2d 592 (1994) (PAWS)).
The PRA's disclosure provisions must be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed. RCW 42.56.030. "The language of the PRA must be interpreted in a manner that furthers the PRA's goal of ensuring that the public remains informed so that it may maintain control over its government." Wade's Eastside Gun Shop, Inc., 185 Wn.2d at 277.
"The PRA requires state and local agencies to disclose all public records upon request, unless the record falls within a PRA exemption or other statutory exemption." Gendler v. Batiste, 174 Wn.2d 244, 251, 274 P.3d 346 (2012). "The agency refusing to release records bears the burden of showing secrecy is lawful." Fisher Broad.-Seattle TV LLC v. City of Seattle, 180 Wn.2d 515, 522, 326 P.3d 688 (2014). "The PRA does not, however, require agencies to 'create or produce a record that is nonexistent.'" Fisher, 180 Wn.2d at 522 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Gendler, 174 Wn.2d at 252)).
"Agencies must...
To continue reading
Request your trial