Wright v. State
| Decision Date | 10 September 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 42647–1–II.,42647–1–II. |
| Citation | 176 Wash.App. 585,309 P.3d 662 |
| Parties | Amber WRIGHT, Respondent, v. STATE of Washington, Department of Social and Health Services, Appellants. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
John D. Clark, Office of the Attorney General, Seattle, WA, for Appellant.
David P. Moody, Martin Daniel McLean, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Paul J. Lawrence, Kymberly Kathryn Evanson, Pacifica Law Group LLP, Seattle, WA, Carter William Hick, Connolly Tacon & Meserve, Olympia, WA, for Respondent.
[176 Wash.App. 587]¶ 1 The Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) appeals the trial court's final order and finding that DSHS violated the Public Records Act (PRA) 12 by failing to provide certain records in response to Amber Wright's PRA requests. DSHS also appeals the trial court's award of penalties, litigation costs, and attorney fees to Wright. DSHS argues that (1) of the four records that Wright alleges it failed to disclose, two of them are not governed by the PRA and the other two were time-barred; and (2) the trial court erred in awarding PRA damages, attorney fees, costs, and penalties to Wright for these perceived violations. We hold that the PRA does not apply to chapter 13.50 RCW juvenile records and that Wright never submitted a PRA request for the other records that she now claims DSHS impermissibly withheld. We reverse the trial court's final order finding that DSHS violated the PRA and the trial court's award of attorney fees, costs, and penalties to Wright.
¶ 2 On March 26, 2007, Amber Wright wrote to the State of Washington Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), requesting “a copy of her entire DSHS file.” Clerk's Papers (CP) at 145. Within several days, DSHS replied, informing Wright that she would have to sign a release to obtain the records and that she would receive them under chapter 13.50 RCW.3 Wright responded with a signed consent form; Diane Fuller, a supervisor at DSHS, then requested clarification:
[I]f you are seeking all DSHS records I will need to forward your request to the other agencies .... My understanding is that you are only seeking Children's Administration records and [I] will begin processingyour request. If I am in error and you wish these other agencies to [be] contacted please let me know.
¶ 3 Approximately one month later, on June 1, DSHS provided Wright with her Children's Administration record, which consisted of five volumes; DSHS also provided page numbers and explanations for any redactions.
¶ 4 Over one year later, on May 20, 2008, Wright sent a second request to DSHS, stating, “Pursuant to [chapter] RCW 42.56 et seq. and [chapter] RCW 13.50 et seq., please consider this an official request pursuant to the Washington State Public Disclosure Statutes for. any and all documents relating to Amber Wright.” CP at 11. More specifically the letter requested:
[C]opies of any and all documents already produced to any person or agency regarding Amber Wright.... This includes, but is not limited to, the following documents:
1. Any and all documents produced to the Pacific County Prosecutor's Office;
2. Any and all documents produced to the Sumner Police Department and
3. Any and all documents produced as a result of any prior public disclosure and/or records request not listed above.
¶ 5 Approximately one week later, DSHS notified Wright that (1) her Children's Administration records were confidential and exempt from public disclosure under chapter 42.56 RCW but her authorization permitted disclosure under chapter 13.50 RCW; and (2) she could expect to receive the other requested records within 120 business days.4 From July through November 2008, DSHS provided Wright with copies of her requested records. On November 14, 2008, DSHS notified Wright that her records request was complete. Wright did not follow up with any additional requests or questions after receiving this last disclosure. Nor did she file a PRA lawsuit.
¶ 6 In December 2009, under RCW 13.50.100, DSHS provided a transcribed copy of a 2005 CD-recorded interview with Wright. DSHS informed Wright that the recording had not been included in its response to Wright's May 20, 2008 request because the interview had “only recently been located,” and DSHS was trying to determine how this recording had been missed in its original search. CP at 221.
¶ 7 On April 6, 2010, Wright sued DSHS for alleged violations of the PRA. She asserted that DSHS had failed to produce certain required documents in response to her PRA requests, such as the 2005 interview and “other critical evidence, including investigative protocols and policies, requested by [Wright].” CP at 4. At trial, Wright claimed that DSHS should have provided its Child Sexual and Physical Abuse Investigation Protocols (investigation protocols) and its Preservice Training for Prospective Foster Parents and Adoptive Parents PRIDE manual (PRIDE manual) in response to her PRA requests, and that its failure to do so entitled Wright to PRA penalties.
[176 Wash.App. 591]¶ 8 In January 2011, DSHS moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that (1) all of the records DSHS provided in response to Wright's March 26, 2007 request were child welfare records, governed by RCW 13.50.100 and, thus, not subject to her PRA action; and (2) all of the records that DSHS had provided in response to her May 20, 2008 request, except for 69 pages,5 were child welfare records, similarly governed by RCW 13.50.100. Shortly thereafter, the State brought a second motion for summary judgment, arguing that Wright's lawsuit seeking damages for DSHS's failure to provide the 69 pages not governed by RCW 13.50.100 was time barred or, alternatively, that DSHS did not wrongfully withhold the records in violation of the PRA. The trial court denied both of DSHS's summary judgment motions.
¶ 9 The case proceeded to a bench trial. The trial court ruled that DSHS violated the PRA by failing to provide the recorded interview and transcription, the PRIDE manual, and the investigation protocols in response to Wright's PRA requests. The trial court also concluded that DSHS had violated the PRA by failing to provide a privilege log identifying each record that it had withheld from Wright. The trial court awarded Wright penalties of $100.00 a day, totaling $287,800.00; $16,096.87 in litigation costs; and attorney fees, with a lodestar 6 multiplier of 2, totaling $346,000.00. DSHS appeals each of these rulings.
¶ 10 DSHS first argues that, because Wright never asked DSHS to produce its PRIDE manual and investigation protocols documents, the trial court erred in concluding that (1) Wright's PRA action was timely filed, and (2) DSHS violated the PRA by failing to provide Wright with those documents. We agree with the State: The record shows Wright's PRA request did not include the PRIDE manual or investigation protocols. We hold, therefore, that the trial court erred in concluding that DSHS had violated the PRA by failing to provide these unrequested documents.
¶ 11 We review de novo challenged agency responses to PRA requests. RCW 42.56.550(3). Thus, we stand in the same position as the trial court. O'Connor v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 143 Wash.2d 895, 904, 25 P.3d 426 (2001). The PRA requires agencies to respond to requests for only “identifiable public records.” RCW 42.56.080; see also Hangartner v. City of Seattle, 151 Wash.2d 439, 447–48, 90 P.3d 26 (2004). A party seeking public records under the PRA must, “at a minimum, provide notice that the request is made pursuant to the [PRA] and identify the documents with reasonable clarity to allow the agency to locate them.” Hangartner, 151 Wash.2d at 447, 90 P.3d 26.
¶ 12 On March 26, 2007, Wright submitted her first request to DSHS, seeking “her entire DSHS file.” CP at 145. On June 1, DSHS sent her a five-volume file that contained her children's juvenile administrative records, which DSHS explained it was providing under the juvenile records act, chapter 13.50 RCW, rather than under the PRA, chapter 42.56 RCW. More than one year later, on May 20, 2008, Wright submitted a second request to DSHS, seeking “any and all documents relating to Amber Wright.” CP at 11. DSHS responded to Wright's second request by again providing under chapter 13.50 RCW a series of disclosures related to her children's juvenile administrative records.
¶ 13 As our Supreme Court has explained,
The [PRA] was enacted to allow the public access to government documents once agencies are allowed the opportunity to determine if the requested documents are exempt from disclosure; it was not enacted to facilitate [the] unbridled searches of an agency's property. [A] proper request under the [PRA] must identify with reasonable clarity those documents that are desired.
Hangartner, 151 Wash.2d at 448, 90 P.3d 26 (emphasis added). The PRIDE manual and investigation protocols provide general DSHS guidance and procedures for numerous DSHS clients and other members of the public; they are not specific to Wright's individual Child Protective Services (CPS) referral history and records.
¶ 14 Wright's request for document production neither expressly mentioned nor identified with “reasonable clarity” the manual or the protocols; on the contrary, its language limited her request to a broad range of materials specifically related to the 2005 investigation of a CPS referral when she was a child.7 We hold, therefore, that because Wright's request for “any and all documents relating to Amber Wright” 8 did not include the DSHS protocols and manual with “reasonable clarity,” 9 DSHS's “failure” to disclose these documents was not a PRA violation and cannot support the trial court's PRA award to Wright for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robbins, Geller, Rudman & Dowd, LLP v. State
...discussed the RCW 42.56.540 injunction standard only in regard to the PRA exemptions); see also Wright v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 176 Wash.App. 585, 596–97, 309 P.3d 662 (2013), review denied, No. 89396–9 (Wash. Feb. 6, 2014) (holding that juvenile records at issue were exempt from d......
-
Doe v. Pierce Cnty.
...specific information or records." Former RCW 42.56.070(1) (2005). Ch. 13.50 RCW is one such statute. Wright v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs. , 176 Wash.App. 585, 597, 309 P.3d 662 (2013). But the CPA, former RCW 4.24.550, is not such a statute. WSP , 185 Wash.2d at 368, 374 P.3d 63.¶ 44 The......
-
Doe v. Wash. State Patrol
...according to chapter 42.56 RCW, discoverable or admissible in judicial or administrative proceedings.” RCW 43.70.050(2).¶ 14 In Wright v. State, the Court of Appeals found that the PRA did not apply to a request for juvenile justice records because chapter 13.50 RCW provided the “sole metho......
-
Hornbuckle v. Wash. State Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs.
...the PRA is an improper way to access records where an "other statute" is an "exclusive" means to obtain records. Wright v. State, 176 Wash. App. 585, 597, 309 P.3d 662 (2013) (citing Deer v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 122 Wash. App. 84, 92-93, 93 P.3d 195 (2004) ). As already discussed,......