Tacoma Public Library v. Woessner

• Decision Date: 05 February 1999
• Docket Number: No. 20145-3-II,20145-3-II
• Citation: 972 P.2d 932
• Court: Washington Court of Appeals
• Parties: TACOMA PUBLIC LIBRARY, a municipal corporation, Respondent, v. Carolyn WOESSNER, individually, Appellant.

Page 932

972 P.2d 932

TACOMA PUBLIC LIBRARY, a municipal corporation, Respondent, v.Carolyn WOESSNER, individually, Appellant.

No. 20145-3-II.

Court of Appeals of Washington Division 2.

Feb. 5, 1999.

As Amended Feb. 20, 1999.

HUNT, J.

On remand from Woessner's Petition for Review to the Supreme Court, we order that our opinion dated February 20, 1998, 90 Wash.App. 205, 951 P.2d 357, is modified as follows:

1.We delete the last sentence of Section E on page 19 , which reads as follows:

Because Woessner has prevailed only in part, and because the Library acted in good faith to protect the privacy of its employees, we award no attorney fees or expenses to either party.

2.In its place, we substitute the following paragraphs:

Under RCW 42.17.340(4), any person who prevails in an action to compel agency disclosure must be awarded attorney fees, regardless of the good faith on the part of the agency withholding the information.Such good faith is relevant only for purposes of determining whether additional penalties should be assessed.A party who wins disclosure of some, but not all, information sought, is nonetheless deemed the "prevailing party" for purposes of awarding attorney fees and costs under the statute.Progressive Animal Welfare v. University of Wash., 114 Wash.2d 677, 684, 790 P.2d 604(1990).Such an award must be related to that portion of attorney fees and costs involved in successfully compelling disclosure of information, not for denied disclosure of the remaining information.Dawson v. Daly, 120 Wash.2d 782, 800, 845 P.2d 995(1993);andLimstrom v. Ladenburg, 136 Wash.2d 595, 616, 963 P.2d 869(1998).

Accordingly, we grant Woessner attorney fees and costs on appeal under RAP 14.2, to be determined by the commissioner and pro-rated according to that portion of effort expended on achieving disclosure of the employee names only.With respect to effort expended on her unsuccessful attempt to compel disclosure of employee numbers, we deny Woessner's request for attorney fees and costs on appeal.11

3.The text of footnote 11 added above, shall read as follows:

We reject the Library's request for attorney fees and costs on appeal with respect to the issue on which it prevailed because the Library did not cross-petition for review on this issue to the Supreme Court, and thus, the Supreme Court's order on remand does not encompass this issue.

4.Delete the word "Defendant" in the case caption on the first page, following the name "...