Servais v. Port of Bellingham
| Decision Date | 27 December 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 31102-6-I,31102-6-I |
| Citation | 72 Wn.App. 183,864 P.2d 4 |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | John SERVAIS, Appellant, v. PORT OF BELLINGHAM, Respondent. Division 1 |
Joseph Thomas Pemberton, Pemberton & Hoogestraat P.S., Bellingham, William Robert Hickman, Marilee C. Erickson, Reed McClure, Seattle, for appellant.
Frank Joseph Chmelik, Chmelik & Johnson, P.S., Bellingham, for respondent.
John Servais appeals from the trial court's ruling that the cost analysis information he sought from the Port of Bellingham (the Port) is exempt from disclosure under the Washington Public Disclosure Act (WPDA). We affirm. In 1990, the Port commissioned Coopers & Lybrand, a national accounting and business consulting firm, to conduct a market feasibility study to determine potential uses of various Port properties, including leasing Port property for development. 1 The Port made this study available to the public.
Based on the results of the study, the Port asked Coopers & Lybrand to prepare a cash flow analysis for some of the potential developments identified in the study. This cash flow analysis or "financial data", as the trial court referred to it, is at issue in this case. The Port commissioned this information to assist it in negotiating lease rates with potential developers. In general, the financial data consists of projected cash flows, occupancy rates, room rates, and revenue figures for potential hotel developments on Port property.
On September 24, 1991, Servais submitted a written request to inspect the financial data. The Port orally refused. On November 4, 1991, Servais received the Port's written refusal, which consisted of an internal Port memorandum, stating that the financial data was exempt from public disclosure under RCW 42.17.310(1)(h), the valuable formulae/research data exemption to the WPDA.
Servais then filed suit under the WPDA seeking disclosure of the financial data. At the initial hearing on February 2, 1992, the trial court reviewed the financial data in camera. On June 19, 1992, the court dismissed Servais' claim and awarded the Port $155 in attorney's fees and costs.
The court made the following findings of fact, which state in relevant part 2:
1. The data withheld by the Port of Bellingham is financial data.
2. That the Port of Bellingham commissioned this data in order to provide for a public gain; (a) namely, to negotiate from a position of a well-informed landlord; and (b) to have the necessary information to value the expected long-term leases.
3. That any hotel development company would keep this type of information private and confidential so that it could deal from its own position of strength.
....
6. That the financial data is valuable formulae and/or research data as defined in R.C.W. 42.17.310(1)(h) in that it was obtained by the Port specifically to assist the Port in negotiating leases of its property.
7. That the release of the financial data would produce a private gain and a public loss.
Servais assigns error to the trial court's conclusion that the financial data is exempt from public disclosure under RCW 42.17.310(1)(h), the valuable formulae/research data exemption. 3
Under the WPDA, appellate review is de novo. City of Tacoma v. Tacoma News, Inc., 65 Wash.App. 140, 143, 827 P.2d 1094, review denied, 119 Wash.2d 1020, 838 P.2d 692 (1992). See RCW 42.17.340(2) (current version at RCW 42.17.340(3) (1992)). The Port is a public agency, RCW 42.17.020(1), and the undisclosed documents are public records. RCW 42.17.020(27).
In general, agencies must disclose all public records, unless the record falls within a specific exemption or another prohibition applies. RCW 42.17.260(1). Exemptions from public disclosure are to be narrowly construed. Tacoma News, 65 Wash.App. at 143, 827 P.2d 1094, (citing Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe, 90 Wash.2d 123, 128, 580 P.2d 246 (1978)); see also RCW 42.17.251 (enacted in 1992). An agency relying on an exemption has the burden of proving that the record falls within the exemption. Tacoma News, 65 Wash.App. at 143-44, 827 P.2d 1094.
At issue, is the scope of RCW 42.17.310(1)(h), which exempts from disclosure:
Valuable formulae, designs, drawings, and research data obtained by any agency within five years of the request for disclosure when disclosure would produce private gain and public loss.
To be exempt from disclosure, the statute requires that: (1) the disputed material be valuable formulae, designs, drawings, or research data; (2) the agency have obtained the material within 5 years of the request; and (3) the disclosure of this material produce a private gain and public loss.
We are asked for the first time to interpret RCW 42.17.310(1)(h). Specifically, we must decide whether the financial data constitutes "research data" as the term is used, but not defined, in RCW 42.17.310(1)(h).
It is well-known that our primary objective when interpreting statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the intent behind the statute. 4 State v. Johnson, 119 Wash.2d 167, 172, 829 P.2d 1082 (1992). When determining the meaning of particular words in a statute, we must consider the statute's subject matter and the context in which the words are used. In re Pepperling, 65 Wash.App. 17, 21, 827 P.2d 347 (1992). In addition, we may look to the dictionary definition to aid our interpretation. Pepperling, at 21, 827 P.2d 347.
Servais contends that the term "research" contemplates some scientific inquiry not applicable to the financial data at issue. Servais relies on several dictionary definitions, including the second definition found in Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1930 (1969), which defines "research" as:
1: careful or diligent search: a close searching ... 2a: studious inquiry or examination; esp: critical and exhaustive investigation or experimentation having for its aim the discovery of new facts and their correct interpretation, the revision of accepted conclusions, theories or laws in the light of newly discovered facts, or the practical applications of such new or revised conclusions, theories, or laws ...
The Port, on the other hand, cites the following definition of "research": "careful or diligent search [and] ... the collecting of information about a particular subject." Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 1002 (1990).
Servais also contends that the financial data is not "data" because the term "data" applies to existing facts, not opinion, as the Port has characterized Coopers & Lybrand's conclusions. Servais again relies on Webster's Third New International Dictionary 577 which defines "datum" as:
1a: something that is given either from being experientially encountered or from being admitted or assumed for specific purposes: a fact or principle granted or presented: something upon which an inference or an argument is based or from which an intellectual system of any sort is constructed ... b(1) ... material serving as a basis for discussion, inference, or determination of policy ... (2): detailed information of any kind ...
The Port responds that The Port relies on the definition found in Black's Law Dictionary which defines "data" as: Black's Law Dictionary 395 (6th ed.1990).
In reviewing the dictionary definitions cited by the parties, it is evident that the meaning of both "research" and "data" ranges from the general to the specific, with the general meaning listed first. As Oliver Wendell Holmes stated in "The Theory of Legal Interpretation," 12 Harv.L.R. 417 (1899):
A word generally has several meanings, even in the dictionary. You have to consider the sentence in which it stands to decide which of those meanings it bears in the particular case, and very likely will see that it there has a shade of significance more refined than any given in the word-book.
Based on our review of the context in which "research data" is used, we conclude that the general definition was intended.
In addition to "research data", RCW 42.17.310(1)(h) exempts valuable formulae, designs, and drawings. It is Servais' position that these terms, taken in context, relate solely to scientific or patented materials and, therefore, financial data cannot be "research data". 5
We disagree. The statute itself contains no scientific qualification. In fact, "valuable formulae, designs, and drawings" are not necessarily scientific in nature, nor is "research data" as the term is defined generally. The first meaning of "research" found in the dictionary cited by Servais is a "careful or diligent search: a close searching". Only in the second meaning does the definition narrow so as to imply a scientific inquiry.
Moreover, our interpretation is consistent with the purpose of the exemption, 6 which is to prevent disclosure of the listed materials when disclosure would result in "private gain" and "public loss". To fulfill this purpose, it is irrelevant whether the research datum, valuable formulae, designs, or drawings at issue are scientific or not. Rather, the crucial inquiry is whether the disclosure of these materials would harm the public interest by allowing private gain at public expense.
For these reasons, we conclude that the term "research data", as used in RCW 42.17.310(1)(h), was intended to be defined generally. Based on the dictionary definitions, "research data" in this context is organized information or material derived from a careful or diligent search which serves as a basis for discussion or decision. 7
It follows from our conclusion that the financial data falls within this definition of research data. First, the Coopers & Lybrand cash flow...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jones v. Washington State Department of Corrections
... ... Dawson ... v. Daly, 120 Wn.2d 782, 791, 845 P.2d 995 (1993); ... Servais v. Port of Bellingham, 72 Wn.App. 183, ... 192-93, 864 P.2d 4 (1993), aff'd, 127 Wn.2d 820, ... ...
-
Allen v. Dan & Bill's RV Park
...we must look at the statutory context as a whole to give effect to the intent underlying the legislation." Servais v. Port of Bellingham , 72 Wash. App. 183, 192, 864 P.2d 4 (1993), aff'd , 127 Wash.2d 820, 904 P.2d 1124 (1995).2. Applicable Provisions in the MHLTA¶ 29 The MHLTA was enacted......
-
Jones v. Wash. State Dep't of Corr.
...are relevant to interpreting the Washington act. Dawson v. Daly, 120 Wn.2d 782, 791, 845 P.2d 995 (1993); Servais v. Port of Bellingham, 72 Wn. App. 183, 192-93, 864 P.2d 4 (1993), aff'd, 127 Wn.2d 820, 904 P.2d 1124 (1995). Although the courts did not address the timing of the loss, federa......
- Snopac Prods., Inc. v. Spencer
-
Table of Cases
...and Health Servs., 198 Wn.App. 745, 396 P.3d 369 (2017), review denied, 189 Wn.2d 1011 (2017): 15.2, 15.3 Servais v. Port of Bellingham, 72 Wn.App. 183, 864 P.2d 4 (1993), aff'd, 127 Wn.2d 820, 904 P.2d 1124 (1995): 4.2(2), 4.2(2), 6.7(2), 7.2(1), 7.3(1), 13.2(2), 17.2(2)(a), 20.2(1), 20.2(......
-
§4.2 What Is A "Public Record"?
...Spokane Research I, 96 Wn.App. at 575; (17) cash-flow analysis for the rental of public property Servais v. Port of Bellingham, 72 Wn.App. 183, 864 P.2d 4 (1993), aff'd on other grounds, 127 Wn.2d 820, 904 P.2d 1124 (1995); (18) "work-related" text messages of a prosecuting attorney sent or......