Yousoufian v. Office of Ron Sims, 49701-4-I.
| Decision Date | 06 January 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 49701-4-I.,49701-4-I. |
| Citation | 114 Wash.App. 836,60 P.3d 667 |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Armen YOUSOUFIAN, Appellant, v. The OFFICE OF RON SIMS, King County Executive, a subdivision of King County, a municipal corporation; The King County Department of Finance a subdivision of King County, a municipal corporation; and The King County Department of Stadium Administration, a subdivision of King County, a municipal corporation, Respondents. |
David J. Balint, David J. Balint, P.L.L.C. and Michael G. Brannan, Law Offices of Michael G. Brannan, Seattle, for Appellant.
Janine Elizabeth Joly, King County Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, Seattle, for Respondents.
Armen Yousoufian successfully sued King County for violating the public disclosure act (PDA), but claims the trial court awarded him an insufficient amount of statutory penalties and attorney fees. We affirm the attorney fee award, but we reverse the trial court's award of the minimum statutory penalty. The trial court's unchallenged findings of egregious mishandling of Yousoufian's record request and a lack of good faith by the County do not support a minimum penalty. Further, the trial court improperly relied on the amount of the attorney fee award in determining the appropriate statutory penalty.
The letter went on to state that Yousoufian had been in Sims' office the day before and had viewed the Conway study, but that several attachments were missing that he wished to see.
Yousoufian's letter was routed to office manager Pam Cole for a response. On June 4, 1997, Cole sent a letter to Yousoufian indicating that his request had been received, that the Conway study was available for him to review, and that archives were being searched for other documents responsive to his request. The letter estimated that it would take three weeks to conduct this search. On June 10, Yousoufian was able to view the Conway study with its attachments, along with one other study that the County found to be responsive to his records request.
On June 20, 1997, the Executive's Office received another letter from Yousoufian in which Yousoufian protested the three-week delay for the remaining documents. Yousoufian's letter pointed out that the restaurant study in particular could not be in the archives because the tax it analyzed was passed very recently. On the same day, Cole sent an electronic mail message to Sims asking about the restaurant reports. Sims replied, stating Cole sent a letter to Yousoufian that same day in which she directed him to request the study from the Washington State Restaurant Association. The trial court found that "[t]here is no evidence as to why this correspondence could not have occurred within five days of May 30th, other than through negligence." Cole's letter also indicated she would contact Yousoufian the following week regarding the rest of his request.
On June 12, Linda Meachum, who had assumed Cole's duties with regard to Yousoufian's request, contacted the King County Department of Stadium Administration and asked that department to search for any documents responsive to Yousoufian's request. Steve Woo, an administrative assistant at Stadium Administration, was assigned the task of responding to the request. There is no evidence that Meachum told the staff at Stadium Administration that the task was time sensitive, and Woo apparently had no knowledge of the PDA or training in responding to PDA requests. The record indicates there was no further communication from the County until July 15 when Woo talked with Yousoufian on the phone. During that conversation, Woo told Yousoufian that there was another Conway study related to football, conducted in 1996. Yousoufian had previously viewed the study related to baseball. On July 25, Woo sent Yousoufian the second Conway study, along with a letter indicating the cost of the Conway study and another study commissioned by the County. Woo did not include the cost documentation Yousoufian had asked for, and the cost information that was provided was later determined to be incorrect. Woo concluded the letter by stating that he hoped Yousoufian's questions had all been answered and asking him to call if he needed any more information.
On August 21, 1997, Yousoufian wrote Sims to express frustration with the fact that his request had not been completely answered. He also expressed his anger over the fact that the second Conway study had not been disclosed immediately. He again requested cost documentation for the studies. In response, Woo allowed Yousoufian to view four more studies. Woo emailed Linda Meachum on August 26 to explain his interactions with Yousoufian. Woo expressed frustration with the situation and stated that he was unsure how to respond to Yousoufian's request. The trial court found that Woo tried to cooperate with Yousoufian but was not adequately trained or knowledgeable to handle the request.
On August 27, 1997, Sims sent a letter in response to Yousoufian's angry letter of August 21. The letter stated that Sims' office had interpreted Yousoufian's original letter as a request for information relating only to the baseball stadium. The letter also stated that the Office of the Executive interpreted all information requests as requests for records housed within that office and implied that the Executive Office's coordination with Stadium Administration was a gratuitous extra step. The letter stated that Linda Meachum was conducting a search of that office's archives and asked Yousoufian to contact Stadium Administration if he wanted them to search their archives as well. With regard to this letter, the trial court found that it was "not reasonable to ask Mr. Yousoufian where to search for the documents responsive to his request."
On October 2, 1997, Yousoufian sent another letter complaining that his request had still not been answered. He again asked for cost documentation. Meachum responded with a letter dated October 9, in which she stated that her office had already provided all the documents in its possession pertaining to the May 30 request. Meachum advised Yousoufian to be very specific in future requests. On the same day, Yousoufian received a letter from Desiree Leigh notifying him that the archival search had been performed and that documents responsive to his request were being forwarded to the County's attorneys for review. The letter estimated that the documents would be available within two weeks. Also on that same day, Woo faxed a letter to Yousoufian explaining that two more studies could be found on the King County web site. Woo sent both studies to Yousoufian on October 10. He also provided information, but no documentation, on the cost of one of the reports.
On October 14, Yousoufian sent another letter to Sims to express confusion and frustration with the apparently conflicting communications he was receiving from different county employees. A King County deputy prosecuting attorney wrote back stating that she had reviewed Yousoufian's original request and believed it had been fully answered. She stated that the archive search had been completed and that two boxes of documents had been retrieved that she said were not responsive to Yousoufian's original request, but related generally to the Kingdome. She invited Yousoufian to view the documents and commented on the difficulty she had interpreting Yousoufian's original records request.
Yousoufian viewed the two boxes of documents on October 28. He made several attempts to arrange a time to view them sooner, but he was not allowed to view them during office hours unless particular staff members were present. He made 132 copies of documents. He later sent a letter to Meachum thanking her for her professionalism during "my three hours of inspecting, at long last, the documents I had originally requested in my May 30, 1997, Public Disclosure Request."
On December 8, 1997, Yousoufian's attorney wrote to Sims stating that his original records request had still not been completely satisfied. The letter outlined the types of records Yousoufian was seeking, including contracts or bills for the studies, bidding documents, or memos discussing the hiring of consultants to conduct the studies. Cole sent an e-mail to Woo and others requesting the documentation. Woo responded on December 12, listing the documents he had already provided and stating that he believed he had responded completely to Yousoufian's request. He expressed frustration with what he saw as Yousoufian's expanding universe of requested materials. Woo indicated that he would generate the other information regarding costs, but there is no indication...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yousoufian v. Office of Sims
...the original trial judge are unchallenged and the subject of three published opinions. See Yousoufian v. Office of King County Executive, 114 Wash. App. 836, 840-46, 60 P.3d 667 (2003) (Yousoufian I), aff'd part, rev'd in part by Yousoufian v. Office of King County Executive, 152 Wash.2d 42......
-
Yousoufian v. Office of Ron Sims
...discretion in awarding the statutory minimum in light of the county's "gross negligence." Yousoufian v. Office of King County Executive, 114 Wash.App. 836, 854, 60 P.3d 667 (2003) (Yousoufian I), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 152 Wash.2d 421, 98 P.3d 463 (2004) (Yousoufian II).4 It upheld t......
-
The Honorable Richard B. SANDERS v. State of Wash.
...Id. 24Citizens For Fair Share v. Dep't of Corr., 117 Wash.App. 411, 437, 72 P.3d 206 (2003); Yousoufian v. Office of King County Executive, 114 Wash.App. 836, 846-47, 60 P.3d 667 (2003), aff'd in part, rev'd in part by Yousoufian I, 152 Wash.2d at 440, 98 P.3d 463; Doe I v. Wash. State Patr......
-
Zink v. City of Mesa
...10 separate penalties was not challenged. Yousoufian 2010, 168 Wash.2d at 450–51, 456, 229 P.3d 735; see Yousoufian v. Ron Sims, 114 Wash.App. 836, 840–45, 849, 60 P.3d 667 (2003), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 152 Wash.2d 421, 98 P.3d 463; Yousoufian 2004, 152 Wash.2d at 426–27, 436 n. 9, ......
-
Table of Cases
...4.2(2), 8.3(2)(b)(ii), 10.2(3)(b)(iii), 13.5, 13.5, 14.3(2), 16.3(3), 18.4(4), 18.4(7) Yousoufian v. Office of Ron Sims, 114 Wn.App. 836, 60 P.3d 667 (2003), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 152 Wn.2d 421, 98 P.3d 463 (2005): 2.2(3), 6.7(5)(c), 7.3(1), 7.3(1), 18.4(3), 18.4(5)(b), 18.5(2)(a), ......
-
§18.4 Attorney Fees
...for any portion of the requested documents found to be exempt. See Yousoufian v. Office of Ron Sims (Yousoufian I), 114 Wn.App. 836, 856, 60 P.3d 667 (2003), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 152 Wn.2d 421, 98 P.3d 463 (2004); Dawson, 120 Wn.2d at 800; Limstrom II, 136 Wn.2d at 616. The award "......
-
Procedural Rules Under Washington's Public Records Act: the Case for Agency Discretion
...v. State Dep't of Corr., 117 Wash. App. 411, 437, 72 P.3d 206, 220 (2003) (quoting Yousoufian v. Office of Sims, 114 Wash. App. 836, 847, 60 P.3d 667, 672 (2003), rev'd in part on other grounds, 152 Wash. 2d 421, 98 P.3d 463 (2004)) (stating that appellate review of amount of costs and stat......
-
§6.7 Reviewing Records for Exemptions
...the agency acted in bad faith when it failed to produce the record. Yousoufian v. Office of Ron Sims (Yousoufian I), 114 Wn.App. 836, 853, 60 P.3d 667 (2003) (no bad faith shown when failure to produce record was not intentional), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 152 Wn.2d 421......