Martin v. City of Lakewood
| Decision Date | 28 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | 38542-6-III |
| Parties | RUSSELL MARTIN, Appellant, v. CITY OF LAKEWOOD, a Washington governmental entity, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
The Public Records Act (PRA), chapter 42.56 RCW, requires governmental agencies to make an adequate investigation when responding to a request for public records. An agency's investigation is adequate when it is reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents. Here, Lakewood Police Officer Russell Martin filed a lawsuit under the PRA alleging the City of Lakewood failed to provide a document relevant to one of his two requests for public records. The City responded by filing a motion for summary judgment that was granted by the superior court. Martin appeals. Because the superior court erred by summarily dismissing Martin's case when the undisputed facts show the City failed to produce a document related to Martin's request, we reverse, hold that Martin is entitled to summary judgment for violation of the PRA, and remand for further proceedings.
In 2019, the Lakewood Police Department conducted two separate but related, investigations into officers following allegations of dishonesty and misconduct. CP 98, 102, 162. The first, labeled 2019-PSS003 (PSS003), [1] involved a single officer being investigated for dishonesty. The second investigation, labeled 2019-PSS004 (PSS004), involved Officer Jeremy Vahle and Officer Russell Martin (Martin). Vahle and Martin were being investigated for failing to report the alleged dishonesty of the officer in the first investigation.
In the second investigation, allegations against Vahle were sustained. Prior to his Loudermill[2] hearing, Vahle was provided with a thumb drive containing documents related to the investigation into his conduct. Included on the thumb drive was an interview with Sergeant Charles Porche, the supervisor of the officer who was the subject of the first investigation. Martin's PRA requests
After the conclusion of the investigations, Martin made two public records requests to the City. First, Martin requested records related to the second investigation, specifically "[a]ll documents and recordings related to [PSS004]." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 58. Second, approximately a month later, Martin made the following request related to the first investigation: "All documents and recordings related to [PSS003]." CP at 31.
The City responded to both of Martin's requests, providing him with the responsive documents and redacting information determined to be exempt from disclosure. In response to his request for documents and recordings related to PSS004, Martin received the following files:
CP at 14. The provided documents contained references to the PSS003 investigation, including two employee statements that were labeled as being related to both PSS003 and PSS004. Upon providing Martin with the documents, the City informed him that it considered his first request relating to PSS004 closed.
In response to Martin's request for files related to PSS003, Martin received, among other records, the video recording of the Porche interview labeled, "Porche-witness-interview- 2019PSS003---004.mp4." CP at 14. The employee statement signed by Porche stated that he was being interviewed "as part of an internal investigation under PSS Control # 003 & 004." CP at 130. The interview, however, had not been included in the City's response to the PSS004 request. Otherwise, though, there was a certain amount of overlap between records provided in response to the PSS003 and the PSS004 requests.[3]
There was no further communication between Martin and the City following the City's responses.
Martin's PRA lawsuit
Approximately seven months after the City responded, Martin filed a complaint for disclosure of public records. In the complaint, Martin alleged that the City had withheld documents in response to his public records request for documents related to PSS004. The complaint did not specify which records Martin was claiming had been wrongfully withheld.
When it learned of Martin's lawsuit, the City reached out to Martin asking for information about what records he believed had been withheld. Based on a conversation with Martin's attorney, the City opened a new public records request in an effort to provide Martin with the documents he had claimed were withheld.
Summary judgment
Several months after Martin brought his lawsuit, the City filed a motion for summary judgment. The City argued it had properly searched for and provided the records requested and had made substantial efforts after the lawsuit was filed to ensure that Martin had received the records requested.
In support of its motion, the City provided a declaration from Svea Pitts, the individual who had responded to both of Martin's requests. She said that when Martin requested documents related to the PSS004 investigation, she "believed . . . he wanted that particular file" and apparently provided only those documents. CP at 279. Pitts also provided information regarding the record-keeping process of the police department:
The [PSS] conducts internal investigations and the files created are labeled PSS with the date and a number, kept in chronological order. Because these investigations are usually sensitive matters, no documents related to any PSS investigation are kept outside of Professional Standards Section. The hard copy records are kept [ ] in a locked closet down our secure hallway. The electronic copies are kept in IAPRO which is our internal software program for cases involving [Lakewood Police Department] employees.
CP at 41. Pitts stated that she had uploaded the records that had been sent to Martin to the website used for responding to public records requests. After she learned of the lawsuit, Pitts re-checked for responsive records in both the stored physical documents as well as the electronic database. She noted that although the interview of Porche was referenced in the PSS004 file, it was physically located in the PSS003 file. However, Pitts changed this statement in a subsequent declaration, saying that the interview was neither summarized nor referenced in the PSS004 file and that it was physically located only in the PSS003 file because it was used only in that investigation.
The City also supported its motion for summary judgment by arguing it had provided all records "related" to the investigation files, and after doing so, it received no further communication from Martin. The City maintained that there had been no violation of the PRA because, prior to filing the action, Martin had been provided all of the records he had been entitled to receive.
On the day of the scheduled hearing on the motion for summary judgment, Martin requested a continuance for medical reasons. Martin also filed a response the same day, in which he argued the City had failed to provide all the responsive documents to the first request, and that the search conducted by Pitts was inadequate. Over the City's objection, the superior court continued the hearing.
After 4:00 p.m. the day before the continued hearing on the motion for summary judgment, Martin filed a declaration from Vahle in response to the City's reply that had been filed approximately a week prior. In his declaration, Vahle stated that prior to his Loudermill hearing, he had received an e-mail from Pitts informing him that she was retrieving the records "associated with [his PSS004] investigation" that included the interview of Porche in a file named "IA 2019-PSS004." CP at 282.
At the outset of the hearing, the City moved to strike Vahle's declaration arguing that it was untimely, did not comport with state and local rules, and was irrelevant. In response, the superior court said that it was not aware of the existence of such a declaration and that it had not read it. Martin argued that the declaration was relevant and that he had not been able to file it earlier due to difficulties coordinating with Vahle.
The trial court never ruled on the City's motion to strike, but did allow Martin to describe the contents of the declaration and rely on it in his argument. The trial court itself referenced the declaration in its oral ruling saying that it was "completely irrelevant to the [summary judgment issue]" because the documents were provided in the context of a Loudermill hearing and not a public records request. Report of Proceedings (RP) (Jul. 2, 2020) at 29.
The City never addressed the details of the actual contents of Vahle's declaration, instead maintaining throughout the hearing that the declaration should be either struck or that its contents were irrelevant.
The superior court granted the City's motion for summary judgment. Martin appeals.[4] A Division Three panel considered Mr. Martin's appeal with oral argument after receipt of an administrative transfer of the case from Division Two.
"The PRA is a strongly worded mandate for broad disclosure of public records." Dotson v. Pierce County, 13 Wn.App. 2d 455, 468, 464 P.3d 563 (2020). The PRA is "liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed." RCW 42.56.030.
Under the PRA, governmental agencies must "make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within specific exemptions." Rental Housing Assn of Puget Sound v. City of Des Moines, 165 Wn.2d 525, 535, 199 P.3d 393 (2009) (quoting RCW 42.56.070(1)). The PRA creates a cause of action if an agency wrongfully denies a requester an opportunity to...
To continue reading
Request your trial