Prison Legal News, Inc. v. Doc
| Decision Date | 14 July 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 74890-0.,74890-0. |
| Citation | 115 P.3d 316,154 Wn.2d 628 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | PRISON LEGAL NEWS, INC., Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. |
William John Crittenden, Patrick Denis Brown, Seattle, for Amicus Curiae Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington Inc., Washington Coalition for Open Government, and
Wshington Newspaper Publishers Association.
Robert Bertelson Mitchell, Julie Anne Halter, Preston Gates & Ellis LLP, Seattle, for Amicus Curiae American Civil Liberties Union.
Greg Overstreet, Attorney General's Office, Olympia, for Amicus Curiae Coalition for Open Government.
Signe H. Brunstad, Seattle, for Amicus Curiae Coalition for Open Government.
Patricia J. Arthur, Columbia Legal Services, Seattle, for Amicus Curiae Angelo Lambrou and Pro-Family Advocates of Washington.
David C. Fathi, ACLU National Prison Project, Washington DC, Amicus Curiae for Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
The diffusion of information and the arraignment of all abuses at the bar of public reason, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration.
¶ 1 We here consider whether identifying information in public records related to medical misconduct investigations in Washington prisons and patient information other than names or identification numbers are exempt from disclosure under the public disclosure act (PDA), chapter 42.17 RCW. We hold that the Department of Corrections (DOC) must release the names of disciplined medical staff and of witnesses. Further, the PDA does not permit DOC to withhold all patient information in a blanket fashion, but DOC must demonstrate that each piece of health care information it seeks to withhold is readily identifiable with a patient. We remand to the trial court for this determination.
¶ 2 Paul Wright, a prisoner and editor for Prison Legal News (PLN), made seven requests for documents from DOC under the PDA.
¶ 3 PLN made the first request to DOC on January 21, 2000. PLN requested (1) documents of all disciplinary actions against DOC medical providers by any licensing authority; (2) names of all doctors, nurses, physician assistants, and mental health providers DOC employed; (3) records related to DOC medical staff practicing with restricted or suspended licenses; (4) records of prisoner deaths in 1999; (5) records of prisoner deaths where medical negligence was a factor; (6) postmortem documents regarding prisoner deaths; and (7) records of staff and prisoner assaults requiring medical treatment from 1994 through 1999.
¶ 4 On January 25 Wright made a second PDA request. Wright requested records of (1) DOC medical providers who had been disciplined or fired; (2) names of disciplined staff members, and the actions taken; and (3) names of DOC staff with arrest records.
¶ 5 On January 26 in response to the first request, DOC told PLN that it needed approximately 30 additional days to find and compile the requested documents. On February 1, in response to the second request, DOC told PLN that it again required approximately 30 additional days to find and compile the requested documents.
¶ 6 On March 8 DOC made available to PLN (1) the names of medical staff members, (2) the number of inmate deaths in 1999, and (3) the quarterly intelligence reports. DOC told PLN that it needed approximately 60 additional business days to respond to the records requests for (1) licensing actions related to DOC medical providers, (2) postmortem records concerning prisoner deaths, (3) disciplinary actions involving DOC medical providers, and (4) the names of DOC employees with arrest records. DOC also told PLN that DOC had no single postmortem document concerning prisoner deaths.
¶ 7 On May 30 DOC told PLN that one document would be disclosed and that other documents would be disclosed on June 21, unless an affected staff member sought to enjoin the disclosure.2 DOC told PLN that it did not maintain records containing formal medical findings pertaining to prisoner deaths.
¶ 8 On June 20 DOC made available to PLN 11 pages of documents concerning DOC medical employees practicing with restricted licenses. DOC also made available 1,207 pages of investigative records pertaining to disciplinary action against DOC medical staff. DOC redacted names and other identifying information for both disciplined staff and witnesses (a category in which DOC included both accusers and investigating personnel as well as others3) under RCW 42.17.310(1)(d) and (e). DOC redacted the names of patients, as well as terms related to the health care or medical conditions of those patients, citing RCW 42.17.312 and RCW 70.02.020.
¶ 9 On July 30 PLN appealed to DOC to reverse its June 20 decision. On August 22 DOC told PLN that DOC affirmed its decision. On September 20 PLN wrote a check for $243.60 for copying costs, but PLN erroneously wrote the check to the secretary of state. DOC notified PLN of its error. PLN wrote another check and received the documents on October 20. At this time DOC gave PLN a two-page chart showing the claimed statutory basis for redactions and nondisclosures.
¶ 10 PLN filed an action with the Thurston County Superior Court on May 11, 2001. A show cause hearing was held June 1. PLN alleged that DOC did not respond to PLN in a reasonable time and that various PDA exceptions claimed by DOC did not apply.
¶ 11 The trial court held that DOC did not violate the PDA, and the time it took to respond to PLN's requests was reasonable. The court required DOC to produce a log specifying which exemption had been claimed for each nondisclosed document or redaction. The court also stated that a second hearing could be requested if PLN and DOC could not negotiate the amount of specificity required regarding which exemption applied to each nondisclosure or redaction. PLN did not request a second hearing.
¶ 12 PLN appealed to the Court of Appeals, Division Two. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court determination that the time in which DOC responded was reasonable and upheld DOC's redactions of names and identifying information of patients, witnesses, investigators, accusers, and the accused, as well as redactions related to patient health care. But the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court on DOC's withholding of preliminary drafts, notes, recommendations, and opinions. The Court of Appeals ordered its commissioner to award attorney fees and costs incurred to obtain the latter documents but did not order that the statutory penalty be imposed.
¶ 13 PLN petitioned this court but only on the application of certain PDA exemptions and the failure of the Court of Appeals to award a statutory penalty. The State did not cross-petition the determination that it had wrongfully withheld preliminary drafts and notes.
¶ 14 The PDA is a strongly worded mandate for broad disclosure of public records. Amren v. City of Kalama, 131 Wash.2d 25, 31, 929 P.2d 389 (1997). Washington's PDA requires every governmental agency to disclose any public record upon request, unless the record falls within certain specific exemptions. O'Connor v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 143 Wash.2d 895, 905 25 P.3d 426 (2001). Any written information about government conduct is a public record, regardless of its physical form or characteristics. RCW 42.17.020(36); Smith v. Okanogan County, 100 Wash.App. 7, 12, 994 P.2d 857 (2000).
¶ 15 Chapter 42.17 RCW provides, "[j]udicial review of all agency actions taken or challenged under RCW 42.17.250 through 42.17.320 shall be de novo." RCW 42.17.340(3); Ockerman v. King County Dep't of Dev. & Envtl. Servs., 102 Wash.App. 212, 216, 6 P.3d 1214 (2000). Moreover, where the trial court record consists only of affidavits, memoranda, and other documentary evidence, we stand in the same position as the trial court. Progressive Animal Welfare Soc'y v. Univ. of Wash., 125 Wash.2d 243, 252, 884 P.2d 592 (1994).
¶ 16 Courts construe the PDA broadly and its exemptions narrowly. Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe, 90 Wash.2d 123, 129, 580 P.2d 246 (1978). The state agency bears the burden of proving that a specific exemption applies. RCW 42.17.340(1); Hoppe, 90 Wash.2d at 130, 580 P.2d 246.
¶ 17 The Court of Appeals held that the names of disciplined DOC medical staff and of witnesses (including inmates involved) could be withheld from the documents "pertaining to DOC medical employees currently employed by the DOC who are practicing with a restricted or suspended license"4 and from documents "pertaining to any DOC medical care providers that have been disciplined, fired, or otherwise sanctioned, with regards to the conduct of their duties in the provision of medical care to prisoners or staff."5 DOC argued that the names of the disciplined employees were exempt from disclosure under RCW 42.17.310(1)(d), and that the names of "victims" and "witnesses" were being withheld under both RCW 42.17.310(1)(d) and (e). However, the Court of Appeals appeared to have relied solely on RCW 42.17.310(1)(d) to uphold DOC's refusal to release this information.
¶ 18 RCW 42.17.310 exempts certain specific categories of information from public disclosure:
(1) The following are exempt from public inspection and copying:
....
(d) Specific intelligence information and specific investigative records compiled by investigative, law enforcement, and penology agencies, and state agencies vested with the responsibility to discipline members of any profession, the nondisclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement or for the protection of any person's right to privacy.
(e) Information revealing the identity of persons who are witnesses to or victims of crime or who file complaints with investigative, law enforcement, or penology agencies,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Building Industry Ass'n v. McCarthy
...ACORN do not exist. See Sperr, 123 Wash.App. at 137, 96 P.3d 1012. ¶ 31 BIAW alternatively relies on Prison Legal News, Inc., v. Dep't of Corr., 154 Wash.2d 628, 635, 115 P.3d 316 (2005), and Progressive Animal Welfare Soc'y, 125 Wash.2d at 250, 884 P.2d 592, for the general proposition tha......
-
Delong v. Parmalee, 35469-1 -II
...v. Hartzog, 96 Wn.2d 383, 391, 635 P.2d 694 (1981)), review denied, 133 Wn.2d 1019 (1997); cf. Prison Legal News, Inc. v. Dep't of Corr., 154 Wn.2d 628, 649, 115 P.3d 316 (2005) (investigations by DOC into medical misconduct by prison medical staff do not fall under the "law enforcement" ex......
-
Resident Action Council v. Seattle Hous. Auth.
...See Sanders, 169 Wash.2d at 858, 240 P.3d 120;Hearst, 90 Wash.2d at 132, 580 P.2d 246;see also Prison Legal News, Inc. v. Dep't of Corr., 154 Wash.2d 628, 645, 115 P.3d 316 (2005). In fact, perhaps most importantly, we already have explained that the redaction requirement applies to the ver......
-
Mechling v. City of Monroe
...to give effect to all language used, rendering "no portion rendered meaningless or superfluous." Prison Legal News, Inc. v. Dep't of Corrections, 154 Wash.2d 628, 643-44, 115 P.3d 316 (2005). When interpreting a statute, we avoid an unlikely, absurd, or strained result. Morris v. Blaker, 11......
-
Table of Cases
...Sch. Dist. No. 81, 182 Wn.2d 896, 346 P.3d 737 (2015): Ch. 1, 8.3(2)(b)(iii), 10.2(3)(c)(iii) Prison Legal News, Inc. v. Dep't of Corr., 154 Wn.2d 628, 115 P.3d 316 (2005): 2.2(3), 8.1, 9.1(1), 9.1(3), 10.2(2), 11.2(1), 11.2(3), 11.2(6), 11.3(6), 19.3(1) Prog. Animal Welfare Soc'y v. Univ. ......
-
Procedural Rules Under Washington's Public Records Act: the Case for Agency Discretion
...v. Pierce County, 144 Wash. 2d 696, 711, 31 P.3d 628, 637 (2001); Prison Legal News, Inc. v. Dep't of Corr., 154 Wash. 2d 628, 635, 115 P.3d 316, 319 (2005); Spokane Research and Def. Fund v. City of Spokane, 155 Wash. 2d 89, 100, 117 P.3d 1117, 1123 (2005); Koenig v. City of Des Moines, 15......
-
Chapter §10.2 Relevant Exemptions
...public employees, even of prison staff, do not qualify for the investigative records exemption. Prison Legal News, Inc. u. Dep't of Corr, 154 Wn.2d 628, 640, 115 P.3d 316 If the only basis for the asserted exemption is privacy, the applicability of RCW 42.56.240(1) is less relevant because ......
-
Chapter §11.3 Access to Public Records Under The Hipaa Privacy Rule
...Washington Supreme Court in applying the HCIA to a request under the Public Records Act. See Prison Legal News, Inc. v. Dep't of Corn, 154 Wn.2d 628, 645, 115 P.3d 316 (2005). The court held that, if an agency believes health care records cannot be sufficiently redacted to protect the ident......