Nast v. Michels, 51741-0
| Citation | 107 Wn.2d 300,730 P.2d 54 |
| Decision Date | 04 December 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 51741-0,51741-0 |
| Parties | Thomas B. NAST, Respondent, v. M. Janice MICHELS, King County Superior Court Clerk, Randy Revelle, King County Executive; King County, a county organized under the State of Washington; and the King County Department of Judicial Administration, Appellants. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Washington |
Norm Maleng, King Co. Prosecutor, Fred Kaseburg, Deputy Co. Prosecutor, Seattle, for appellants.
Thomas Nast, Seattle, pro se.
Fred Diamondstone, Bendich, Stobaugh & Strong, Stephen Strong, Seattle, for respondent.
Appellants, King County Superior Court Clerk, King County Department of Judicial Administration, and King County appeal the trial court's decision that the public disclosure act, RCW 42.17 (PDA), applies to Superior Court case files and coin-operated copiers. The appellants also appeal the trial court's award of attorney fees pursuant to the PDA to respondent Thomas B. Nast and his co-counsel. We reverse the trial court's decision with respect to application of the PDA and disallow attorney fees. We affirm its decision based on the common law.
The controversy arose when King County Executive Randy Revelle, in a plan to reduce the county's budget by $2.4 million, cut $40,000 from the King County Department of Judicial Administration's budget for court case file check-out services. The reduction would limit file check-out to a prior appointment basis only. The Superior Court Clerk replaced the existing policy permitting on-demand access to court case files with a procedure requiring 1-day advance notice before the court case files would be made available with same day access provided in emergency or exigent situations. The realized effects of this change were inconvenience and costly delays to attorneys and othersseeking access to the court case files.
Nast, an attorney, filed suit on his own behalf initially alleging that the policy of a 1-day turnaround time for viewing court case files should be enjoined because it violated the PDA, the common law right of access to the records, and the State and federal constitutions. Nast filed an amended complaint alleging an additional violation of the PDA because the fees charged for photocopying court case files were allegedly more than actual costs. Nast filed a second amended complaint alleging that charges for copying microfilmed files were excessive also.
The parties entered into two stipulations. The first, entitled "Stipulation as to certain Facts", established the factual background of the dispute and covered inter alia previous and current file access policies and procedures. The second entitled "Stipulation for Partial Settlement of Claims and Order Approving Stipulation" stated that if the PDA applied the allowable copy charges would be 15 cents for paper copies and 25 cents for microfilm copies.
On the file access issue, both parties moved for partial summary judgment. The court entered partial summary judgment in favor of Nast finding the new policy violated the PDA and the common law because the files were not "promptly available". Supp. Clerk's Papers, at 59, 63. Specifically, the trial court found the case files were public records of an agency within the meanings of the PDA. The court ordered the Clerk to make court files "promptly available in the most timely possible action". Supp. Clerk's Papers, at 65. On the copying charges issues Nast moved for summary judgment. The court found the PDA applied and ordered a reduction of charges to the stipulated levels.
After prevailing on all issues, Nast moved for an award of attorney fees and costs pursuant to RCW 42.17.340. The court awarded $34,130.45 including costs and a multiplier to Nast as a pro se attorney and his co-counsel.
Appellants sought and were granted direct review pursuant to RAP 4.2(a)(4).
The threshold issue is whether the PDA provides access to the King County Superior Court case files which are maintained by the King County Department of Judicial Administration. The parties stipulated that the files covered by the lawsuit are
[t]he official Superior Court records, indexes and case files ... maintained by the clerk in the King County Department of Judicial Administration. These court records and files include all pleadings in filed court cases. Such court cases include civil lawsuits for damages, declaratory judgment proceedings, arbitration confirmations, felony criminal cases, actions involving title to real property, unlawful detainer actions, appeals from Justice and Municipal courts, probate matters, guardianship matters, juvenile court matters, divorces, marital dissolutions and petitions for legal separation, paternity actions, guardianship cases, adoptions, mental illness cases, alcohol treatment cases, receiverships, actions to abate nuisances, injunctions, writs of certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus and Superior Court reviews of administrative proceedings in King County, Washington.
Supplemental Clerk's Papers, at 33-34.
The public has a common law right of access to court case files. Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 1311, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978); In re Nat'l Broadcasting Co., 653 F.2d 609, 612 (D.C.Cir.1981); Cowles Pub. Co. v. Murphy, 96 Wash.2d 584, 588, 637 P.2d 966 (1981). This right has been described as "fundamental to a democratic state." United States v. Mitchell, 551 F.2d 1252, 1258 (D.C.Cir.1976), reversed on other grounds sub nom. Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., supra. The common law right to inspect and copy judicial records, however, is not absolute. "Every court has supervisory power over its own records and files, and access has been denied where court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes." Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598, 98 S.Ct. at 1312. Court case files are generally available except where specific reasons exist for not disclosing a case file, e.g., adoption files, juvenile files. "Because of the difficulties inherent in formulating a broad yet clear rule to govern the variety of situations in which the right of access must be reconciled with legitimate countervailing public or private interests, the decision as to access is one which rests in the sound discretion of the trial court." Nat'l Broadcasting, at 613; see Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599, 98 S.Ct. at 1312; Cowles, 96 Wash. at 589, 637 P.2d 966. Most of the court case files at issue in this case were and are available by common law access. Nast was not denied access to a particular file, but rather challenged the new access procedure.
Because the common law provides a right of access to court case files and because of the language of the public records section of the PDA, we hold the PDA does not provide access to court case files.
The PDA, RCW 42.17, was enacted by Initiative 276 in 1972. Fritz v. Gorton, 83 Wash.2d 275, 517 P.2d 911 (1974). An argument in support of the initiative explained that the initiative sought to rectify a concern over "secrecy in government and the influence of private money on governmental decision making." 1972 Voters Pamphlet, at 10. The PDA addresses four areas: disclosure, campaign finances, lobbying and public records. After stating eleven purposes, its purpose section declares the act is to be construed to promote
complete disclosure of all information respecting the financing of political campaigns and lobbying, and the financial affairs of elected officials and candidates, and full access to public records so as to assure continuing public confidence of fairness of elections and governmental processes, and so as to assure that the public interest will be fully protected.
The PDA area involved in this case addresses access to public records. RCW 42.17.250-.340. It requires agencies to make public records available to the public for inspection and copying. RCW 42.17.260(1); . 270; .290.
The PDA provides statutory definitions for agency and public records in a general definition section applying to the entire PDA, RCW 42.17.020:
(1) "Agency" includes all state agencies and all local agencies. "State agency" includes every state office, department, division, bureau, board, commission, or other state agency. "Local agency" includes every county, city, town, municipal corporation, quasi-municipal corporation, or special purpose district, or any office, department, division, bureau, board, commission, or agency thereof, or other local public agency.
* * *
(26) "Public record" includes any writing containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.
(Italics ours.)
These are very broad definitions which could be interpreted to include court case files held by the Department of Judicial Administration. Court case files historically have been referred to as public records. See RCW 2.32.050(10). It is precisely because they are deemed public records that the common law provides access to them. The PDA was enacted to allow access by the public to records held by an "agency" concerning "the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function". RCW 42.17.020(26).
The King County Department of Judicial Administration by its name falls within the definition of agency. Furthermore, King County Charter § 350.20 provides that it is an executive department. The Department, however, is a unique institution. Although its funding and directives place it within the executive realm, its function as custodian for court case files places it within the judicial realm. "Courts have the inherent authority to control their records and proceedings." Cowles, 96 Wash. at 588, 637 P.2d 966. Court case files are generated by litigation activity occurring solely in the judicial branch of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wright v. Terrell
...may sustain the trial court on any correct ground, even though that ground was not considered by the trial court. Nast v. Michels, 107 Wash.2d 300, 308, 730 P.2d 54 (1986); see also State v. Costich, 152 Wash.2d 463, 477, 98 P.3d 795 18. A trial court abuses its discretion only if the discr......
-
Grange Ins. Ass'n, Corp. v. Roberts
...may sustain a trial court on any correct ground, even though that ground was not considered by the trial court.” Nast v. Michels, 107 Wash.2d 300, 308, 730 P.2d 54 (1986). Accordingly, this case can be decided as a matter of law based on whether the term “damages because of bodily injury” i......
-
Associated Press v. Washington State Legislature
...or other state agency." Id. They did not otherwise define any of the terms in the definition of "state agency." See generally id. The Nast court aptly observed, "These are very broad definitions." Nast v. Michels, 107 Wash.2d 300, 305, 306-07, 730 P.2d 54 (1986) (noting that these definitio......
-
Mohr v. Grantham
...Harm § 26 Reporter's Note cmt. n at 375. 7. This court may sustain a trial court ruling on any correct ground. Nast v. Michels, 107 Wash.2d 300, 308, 730 P.2d 54 (1986). FN1. Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 341, 162 N.E. 99 (1928) (quoting Frederick Pollock, The Law of Torts......