Mechling v. City of Monroe
| Citation | 222 P.3d 808,152 Wash.App. 830 |
| Decision Date | 26 October 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 62011-8-I.,62011-8-I. |
| Parties | Meredith MECHLING, Appellant, v. CITY OF MONROE, Respondent. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Washington |
William John Crittenden, Seattle, for Appellant.
Scott A.W. Johnson, Matthew Lane Harrington, Stokes Lawrence PS, Seattle, for Amicus Curiae Wash. Coalition for Open Government.
Angela Summerfield Belbeck, Ogden Murphy Wallace, Seattle, for Respondent.
¶ 1 In 2005, Meredith Mechling made two separate public record requests to the City of Monroe for e-mail messages of city council members discussing city business. Mechling appeals the trial court's decision that personal e-mail addresses of the council members in e-mails discussing city business are exempt from disclosure under the personal information exemption of the Public Disclosure Act (PDA), former RCW 42.17.310(1)(u) (2005).1 Mechling also contends the trial court erred in ruling that the PDA does not require the City to provide unredacted e-mail messages in an electronic format and that the City properly identified and withheld or redacted other e-mail messages. We hold that the personal e-mail addresses used by city council members to discuss city business are not exempt from disclosure under former RCW 42.16.310(1)(u). We also conclude the City's identification of the records withheld in response to the March 2005 request was inadequate, and the court erred in ruling that the City properly withheld or redacted other e-mails. Although the PDA does not require the City to provide the unredacted e-mails in an electronic format, on remand the court should consider whether it is reasonable and technically feasible to do so. We reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand.
¶ 2 On March 21, 2005, Meredith Mechling made a public records request to the City of Monroe related to two recent city council meetings. Mechling requested:
Any and all written communications, including but not limited to memos and faxes, and emails originating from or delivered to the City of Monroe pertaining or referring to the City Council meetings of 3/2/05 and 3/9/05. Please include any and all correspondence related to the ethics ordinance or ethics board appointments.
In response to the City's request for clarification, Mechling stated:
I am requesting a copy of all written communication related to the City Council meetings of 3/2/05 and 3/9/05, including the agenda packets, faxes, memos, and all emails to or from the City of Monroe's computer server, which relate in any way to the subject of the Ethics Ordinance or proposed amendments to it. That would include copies of emails to or from the City Attorney, the City Administrator, and/or councilmembers.
¶ 3 On March 23, the City provided Mechling with approximately 21 pages of records, including two e-mail messages from a council member to the City Administrator. In a letter dated April 4, the City identified 15 other e-mail messages "to and from" the City Attorney as exempt from disclosure based on attorney-client privilege.
¶ 4 The following communications are exempt pursuant to RCW 5.60.060:
E-mail to and from the City Attorney Phil Olbrects Dated: March 4, 2005 (4:05 p.m.); March 7, 2005; (6.09 p.m.); March 7, 2005 (3.41 p.m.); March 7, 2005 (3:24 p.m.); March 7, 2005 (5.07 p.m.) March 7, 2005 (8.51 a.m.); March 7, 2005 (12:10 p.m.) March 4, 2005 (9.42 p.m.); March 4, 2005 (4:05 p.m.); March 4, 2005 (3:07 p.m.); March 3, 2005 (6:13 p.m.) March 3, 2005 (8:08 p.m.); March 3, 2005 (2:09 p.m.); March 3, 2005 (1:45 p.m.) March 3, 2005 (8.54 a.m.) These communications, while responsive to your request, fall within the Attorney/Client privilege and are exempt from disclosure.
¶ 5 On December 28, Mechling made a second public records request to the City asking for e-mail messages to and from city council members from December 1 to December 28 discussing city business.
Pursuant to the Public Disclosure Law, please provide copies of the following public information:
E-mails to and from any Monroe City Councilmembers in which city business is the subject matter, including e-mails originating from the home or business computers of council members, from December 1, 2005 to the present.2
In response to the City's request for clarification Mechling stated:
I am requesting all emails sent by, or received by Monroe City Council members, including those emails contained on their home or business computers, in which city business is discussed, from 12/1/05 to the present. In other words, I am not limiting the emails to those contained on the City's computer system.3
¶ 6 On January 5, 2006 Mechling told the City she wanted the e-mail messages in an electronic format:
In the interest of saving staff time and expense, I would prefer that the e-mails be delivered electronically. Since they already exist in electronic form, this seems reasonable. . . . Of course, I am not interested in information of a personal nature, and understand that this may require redaction. I am assuming that you have not yet made copies since you told me the records would not be available until January 31.
¶ 7 On February 3, the City Attorney sent an e-mail to Mechling concerning the administrative work necessary to comply with her request.
You have made a very broad disclosure request on records that councilmembers had considered personal, involving e-mails from home and work computers with family, friends and other people. City issues are mixed with personal communications and we have had to spend considerable time separating and redacting to ensure that the City complies with the law while protecting the privacy of city officials.
The City Attorney asked Mechling to "seriously consider limiting your request to the extent possible out of respect for the privacy of Monroe's councilmembers." In response, Mechling declined to narrow the request and noted that she had not received a response to her earlier "request delivered electronically."
¶ 8 In response, the City Attorney informed Mechling that The City Attorney stated paper copies of the records would be provided at a cost of 15 cents per page.4
¶ 9 In a letter dated February 8, the City Attorney provided Mechling with a "List of Redacted Documents" for the December 2005 request. The letter describes the redactions as follows:
All personal addresses, telephone numbers, and electronic mail addresses of council members have been redacted pursuant to RCW 42.17.310(u). Other redactions and their respective exemptions are noted on the attached log.
The log identifies the e-mails by date, time, and the names of the individuals who sent and received the e-mail messages. The log also describes the basis for the redactions, citing the personal information exemption under former RCW 42.17.310(1)(u), attorney-client privilege, and the deliberative process exemption under former RCW 42.17.310(1)(i). The log also indicates that some e-mails were redacted because the information "`Does not meet definition of public record.'"
¶ 10 On July 21, Mechling filed a "Complaint for Public Disclosure." Mechling alleged that the City violated the PDA by improperly withholding or redacting the public records, refusing to provide e-mails in the original electronic format, and failing to adequately identify the records that were withheld or redacted.
¶ 11 On November 13, Mechling filed a motion for partial summary judgment. The court ruled there were genuine issues of material fact and denied the motion.
¶ 12 In October 2007, the City and Mechling entered into a 12-page stipulation setting forth the undisputed facts and attaching 26 exhibits. Thereafter, Mechling and the City filed cross motions for summary judgment.
¶ 13 The court granted the City's motion for summary judgment and entered the following findings:
1. Former RCW 42.17.310(1)(u) [RCW 42.56.250(3)] authorizes redaction of councilmembers' personal e-mail addresses from e-mails discussing City business; and
2. The Public Records Act does not require the City to provide records in electronic format, and that the City may satisfy its obligations under the Act by providing paper copies of responsive records; and
3. The City properly withheld attorney-client privileged communications in full and properly redacted attorney-client privileged information that fell within otherwise non-privileged documents; and
4. The City properly redacted information that did not meet the definition of a public record; . . . In an addendum, the court made additional findings in support of its decision that the personal e-mail addresses are exempt from disclosure under former RCW 42.17.310(1)(u) and the City complied with the PDA in providing copies of the requested records.
1). The court finds that the personal e-mail addresses at issue herein do not constitute a "public record" as that term is defined in RCW 42.56.010 (former RCW 42.17.020). Further, that type of information is designated in RCW 42.56.250 (former RCW 42.17.310(1)(u) [)] as exempt from public inspection and copying. The court finds that chapter 56 (former chapter 17), when read as a whole, exempts the e-mail addresses in question here. This premise is supported by the Defendant's reliance on Tacoma Public Library v. Woessner, 90 Wash.App. 205, 951 P.2d 357 (1998), the holding being that it is the nature of the information, not it's [sic] precise physical location, that determines its status as exempt. As counsel indicated at argument, the statutes here have been amended and modified in almost a piece-meal fashion. It appears to the court, however, that the general intent of the statute is to exempt certain information. It further appears to the court that personal e-mail addresses, as at issue here, should be exempted. The City properly redacted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zink v. City of Mesa
...... Mechling v. City of Monroe, 152 Wash.App. 830, 850, 222 P.3d 808 (2009), review denied, 169 Wash.2d 1007, 236 P.3d 206 (2010); former RCW 42.17.310(2). ......
-
Benton Cnty. v. Zink
......The Mitchell[1]court and Mechling[[[[2]court make clear such duplication of effort is outside the county's obligations under the ...City of Des Moines,111 Wash.App. 284, 290, 44 P.3d 887 (2002).¶ 15 A stand alone statute is not needed ...City of Des Moines,165 Wash.2d 525, 536, 199 P.3d 393 (2009)); see Mechling v. City of Monroe,152 Wash.App. 830, 845, 222 P.3d 808 (2009)( [T]his court avoids any “unlikely, absurd, or ......
-
In re Premera Blue Cross Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.
...... attorney client privilege is limited to information related to obtaining [legal] advice." Mechling v. City of Monroe , 152 Wash. App. 830, 853, 222 P.3d 808 (2009). The privilege "applies to any ......
-
Costello v. Tanner Electric Cooperative
...(court will not review pro se arguments that receive only passing treatment). [27] Mechlinq v. City of Monroe. 152 Wn.App. 830, 845, 222 P.3d 808 (2009) (when interpreting statutes, courts avoid any "unlikely, absurd, or strained result."). [28] Clerk's Papers at 1364 (emphasis added). [29]......
-
Table of Cases
...1352 (1983): 7.3 McNeary v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 105 Wn.2d 136, 712 P.2d 845 (1986): 2.3(1)(b) Mechling v. City of Monroe, 152 Wn. App. 830, 222 P.3d 808 (2009), review denied, 169 Wn.2d 1007 (2010): 13.3(2)(d) Mehlenbacher v. DeMont, 103 Wn. App. 240, 11 P.3d 871 (2000): 3.4(3) Miller, In re ......
-
Table of Cases
...Mead Sch. Dist. No. 354 v. Mead Educ. Ass'n, 85 Wn.2d 140, 530 P.2d 302 (1975): 22.4(3) Mechling v. City of Monroe, 152 Wn.App. 830, 222 P.3d 808 (2009), review denied, 169 Wn.2d 1007 (2010): 2.2(3), 4.2(1), 4.2(2), 5.1(3), 5.1(4), 6.6(1), 6.7(3)(b), 6.8(3), 6.8(3)(a), 6.8(3)(b), 7.2(1), 8.......
-
§10.2 Relevant Exemptions
...to any personal information about an employee that might be in a public record. See Mechling v. City of Monroe, 152 Wn.App. 830, 845, 222 P.3d 808 (2009) that employee contact information must be "in" a personnel record or employment-related record to be exempt under RCW 42.56.250(3), a rel......
-
§13.3 - Considerations Unique to Government Lawyers Under The RPCs
...protects confidential communications between a government lawyer and a client. Mechling v. City of Monroe, 152 Wn. App. 830, 852, 222 P.3d 808 (2009), review denied, 169 Wn.2d 1007 (2010); RCW 5.60.060(2)(a). Similarly, communications between a county and a state agency are exempt from publ......