Predisik v. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81

• Decision Date: 02 April 2015
• Docket Number: No. 90129–5.,90129–5.
• Citation: 182 Wash.2d 896,346 P.3d 737
• Parties: Anthony J. PREDISIK and Christopher Katke, Petitioners, v. SPOKANE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 81, Respondent.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

182 Wash.2d 896

346 P.3d 737

Anthony J. PREDISIK and Christopher Katke, Petitioners

v.SPOKANE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 81, Respondent.

No. 90129–5.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

Argued Oct. 28, 2014.

Decided April 2, 2015.

Tyler Michael Hinckley, Montoya Hinckley PLLC, Yakima, WA, for Petitioners.

Paul Eric Clay, Brian E. Kistler, Stevens Clay & Manix PS, Spokane, WA, Philip James Buri, Buri Funston Mumford PLLC, Bellingham, WA, for Respondent.

William John Crittenden, Patrick Denis Brown, Attorney at Law, Seattle, WA, amicus counsel for Washington COAlition for Open Government.

Margaret Ji Yong Pak, Enslow Martin PLLC, Sarah A. Dunne, ACLU of Washington Foundation, Douglas B. Klunder, Attorney at Law, Seattle, WA, amicus counsel for Aclu.

Tyler K. Firkins, Stephanie Lynn Beach, Van Siclen Stocks Firkins, Auburn, WA, amicus counsel for Washington Education Association.

Ramsey E. Ramerman City of Everett Everett, WA, for amicus counsel for Washington Association of Sheriffs & Police Chiefs.

Opinion

YU, J.

¶ 1 This case involves two public school employees who are on paid administrative leave while their employer investigates allegations of misconduct. We must decide if public records that reveal these investigations are occurring—but do not describe the allegations being investigated—implicate the employees' privacy rights under the Public Records Act (PRA), chapter 42.56 RCW. We hold they do not. Because no exemption applies to withhold the records from public inspection, we reverse and remand with instructions to order the records at issue disclosed in their entirety without redaction.

Facts and Procedural History

¶ 2 Anthony J. Predisik and Christopher Katke are longtime employees of the Spokane School District No. 81 (District). In late 2011 and early 2012, the District began to investigate Predisik and Katke after individuals made separate, unrelated allegations against the two employees. The substance behind those allegations is not in the record, but the District's investigations are apparently ongoing and entering their fourth year. The District placed Predisik and Katke on administrative leave and has paid salaries to both employees while it investigates.

¶ 3 In the spring of 2012, two media outlets submitted public records requests to the District. One request sought the “administrative leave letter given to Anthony Predisik, a Shadle Park High School counselor,” Clerk's Papers at 50. The other request asked for “information on all district employees currently on paid/non-paid administrative leave.” Id. at 331. The requests returned three public records relevant to this dispute.

¶ 4 The first record is Predisik's “administrative leave letter,” a short letter informing Predisik that he has been placed on administrative leave “pending completion of the District's investigation into allegations of inappropriate interactions with a former student.” Ex. P–1. It also tells Predisik he is banned from district property and from talking with students about the matter during the investigation. The letter does not describe the allegations in any further detail and does not name Predisik's accuser.

¶ 5 The second and third records are spreadsheets that document the amount of leave pay Predisik and Katke had accumulated through April 2012. Exs. P–2, P–3. The spreadsheets, one for each employee, contain columns for the employee's name, the date of pay, the hours paid, the rate of pay, and a position code.Id. The final column indicates the reason for leave, which is described generically for both Predisik and Katke as “[a]llegations currently under investigation.” Id. Similar to the leave letter, the spreadsheets provide no further detail about the allegations or the accusers.

¶ 6 Predisik and Katke separately sued the District to enjoin disclosure of the leave letter and spreadsheets, alleging each record is exempt under the “[p]ersonal information” and “investigative” record exemptions of RCW 42.56.230(3) and 42.56.240(1). The District opposed the injunction and argued the leave letter and spreadsheets should be disclosed.¹ The trial court consolidated the two cases, and the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment. Citing our opinion in Bellevue John Does 1–11 v. Bellevue Sch. Dist. No. 405, 164 Wash.2d 199, 189 P.3d 139 (2008), the trial court found that Predisik's and Katke's identities, but not the records themselves, were exempt from disclosure under RCW 42.56.230(3). The judge ordered all three records disclosed with Predisik's and Katke's names redacted. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Predisik v. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81, 179 Wash.App. 513, 319 P.3d 801 (2014).

¶ 7 We granted review to clarify when the PRA will recognize a right to privacy in the identity of a public employee who is the subject of an open investigation by his or her public employer. Predisik v. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81, 180 Wash.2d 1021, 328 P.3d 903 (2014).

Analysis

¶ 8 The PRA requires that agencies “shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records,” subject only to a handful of statutory exemptions. RCW 42.56.070(1) ; see also Progressive Animal Welfare Soc'y v. Univ. of Wash., 125 Wash.2d 243, 260, 884 P.2d 592 (1994) (PAWS II ). The PRA ensures the sovereignty of the people and the accountability of the governmental agencies that serve them by providing full access to information concerning the conduct of government. PAWS II, 125 Wash.2d at 251, 884 P.2d 592. To effectuate that policy, we start with the presumption that all public records are subject to disclosure. Agencies can withhold a record only if it falls within one of the PRA's specific, limited exemptions. RCW 42.56.070(1). These exemptions are narrow, and we apply them in favor of partial disclosure where possible since “the PRA's purpose of open government remains paramount.” Resident Action Council v. Seattle Hous. Auth., 177 Wash.2d 417, 432, 327 P.3d 600 (2013) ; see also RCW 42.56.070(1) (requiring that agencies redact records only “[t]o the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by [the PRA]” and produce the remainder of the record). Similarly, the PRA reminds us “that free and open examination of public records is in the public interest, even though such examination may cause inconvenience or embarrassment to public officials or others.” RCW 42.56.550(3).

¶ 9 Predisik and Katke argue that two of the PRA's exemptions independently justify withholding the leave letter and spreadsheets from disclosure. First, the employees assert the records contain personal information, the disclosure of which would violate their rights to privacy. RCW 42.56.230(3). Second, they argue the records constitute investigative records that are essential to law enforcement. RCW 42.56.240(1). We apply each exemption in turn.

A. Personal information exemption

¶ 10 Predisik and Katke rely principally on RCW 42.56.230(3), which exempts from disclosure “[p]ersonal information in files maintained for employees ... of any public agency to the extent that disclosure would violate their right to privacy.” Application of this exemption involves three separate questions: (1) whether the records contain personal information, (2) whether the employees have a privacy interest in that personal information, and (3) whether disclosure of that personal information would violate their right to privacy. Bellevue John Does, 164 Wash.2d at 210, 189 P.3d 139. The first question is not in dispute. The leave letter and spreadsheets, which identify Predisik and Katke by name, contain “ ‘personal information’ [i.e., the employees' identities] because they relate to particular people.” Id. at 211, 189 P.3d 139.

¶ 11 The existence of “personal information” in a public record is necessary to the exemption, but it is not sufficient alone to withhold the record. Employees must also demonstrate that they have a right to privacy in personal information contained in a record and if such a right exists, that disclosure would violate it. The personal information at issue here is Predisik's and Katke's identities when they are contained in public records disclosing that the District is investigating allegations of misconduct. So we next must decide whether the PRA grants public employees under investigation a right to privacy in their identities.

¶ 12 The statute's text offers little guidance to answer this question. Although the PRA expressly provides “the test for determining when the right to privacy is violated [, it] does not explicitly identify when the right to privacy exists. ” Bainbridge Island Police Guild v. City of Puyallup, 172 Wash.2d 398, 412–13, 259 P.3d 190 (2011) (footnote omitted) (citing Bellevue John Does, 164 Wash.2d at 212, 189 P.3d 139 ). We previously used principles of tort law to fill this definitional void and define the contours of the PRA's privacy right. In Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe, 90 Wash.2d 123, 135, 580 P.2d 246 (1978), we concluded that the “right of privacy,” as it is used in the PRA, means “what it meant at common law,” and we adopted the definition in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D (1977) (§ 652D ).

¶ 13 Therefore, a person has a right to privacy under the PRA only in “ ‘matter[s] concerning the private life.’ ”

Id. at 135, 580 P.2d 246 (quoting § 652D ). To explain how that standard is applied in practice, we looked to the Restatement 's summary of the right to privacy:

“Every individual has some phases of his life and his activities and some facts about himself that he does not expose to the public eye, but keeps entirely to himself or at most reveals only to his family or to close personal friends. Sexual relations, for example, are normally entirely private matters, as are family quarrels, many unpleasant or disgraceful or humiliating illnesses, most intimate personal letters, most details of a man's life in his home, and some of his past history that he would rather forget.”

Id. at 136, 580 P.2d 246 (quoting §...