John Doe v. Dep't of Corr., 94203-0

Decision Date31 May 2017
Docket NumberNo. 94203-0,94203-0
Citation394 P.3d 1009 (Table),188 Wash.2d 1008
CourtWashington Supreme Court
Parties John DOE, et al., Respondents, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Petitioners.
ORDER

¶ 1 Department II of the Court, composed of Chief Justice Fairhurst and Justices Madsen, Stephens, González and Yu, considered at its May 30, 2017, Motion Calendar whether review should be granted pursuant to RAP 13.4(b) and unanimously agreed that the following order be entered.

¶ 2 IT IS ORDERED:

¶ 3 That the petitions for review are granted only as to two issues: whether Respondents should have been allowed to use pseudonyms and whether unredacted SSOSA evaluations are exempt from disclosure because they contain health care information. The Respondents' motion to strike Petitioner Zink's reply to the answer is granted. Petitioner Zink's motion to strike portions of Respondents' answer is denied. Any party may serve and file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of this order, see RAP 13.7(d).

For the Court

/s/ Fairhurst, C.J. CHIEF JUSTICE

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Doe v. Dep't of Corr.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • February 22, 2018
    ...RCW 42.56.360(2) and RCW 70.02.020(1)."2 John Doe G v. Dep't of Corr., 197 Wash. App. 609, 623, 391 P.3d 496, review granted, 188 Wash.2d 1008, 394 P.3d 1009 (2017). The court found that SSOSA evaluations "directly relate to offenders' health care" because, among other things, they contain ......
  • Doe v. Thurston Cnty.
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • June 20, 2017
    ...contained confidential health care information. 197 Wash.App. 609, 613-14, 391 P.3d 496 (2017), review granted in part , 188 Wash.2d 1008, 394 P.3d 1009 (2017).b. " PATIENT "¶26 Zink argues that the PRA's UHCIA exemption does not apply because a sex offender is not the " ‘patient’ " of an e......
  • Rufin v. City of Seattle
    • United States
    • Washington Court of Appeals
    • June 26, 2017
    ...in a PRA action."); John Doe G v. Dep't of Corr. , 197 Wash.App. 609, 391 P.3d 496, 506 (2017), petition for rev. granted , 188 Wash.2d. 1008, 394 P.3d 1009 (2017) ("the normal civil rules apply to PRA proceedings. Thus, the rule governing class certification, CR 23, controls here."). Becau......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT