Clark v. Smith Bunday Berman Britton P.S.

Jun 30, 2010

OUTCOME: Trial Court judgment affirmed

Facts: Plaintiffs sue accounting firm, alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, etc. Parties entered into a stipulated protective order mandating all documents produced in discovery be characterized ... "confidential" and filed under seal. During the proceedings Plaintiffs attempted to use several of the documents to respond to Defendants' summary judgment, but Defendant refused, citing the protective order. Clark was an expert witness who filed a Declaration in support of Plaintiff's Response brief--Defendants objected to the fact that Clark had attached several "confidential" documents to his Declaration, and argued that they should have been filed under seal. Plaintiffs and Defendant entered another stipulated order, this time to re-file Clark's Declaration (with redactions) and also to seal several other filed court documents. Clark objected to this and sought intervention in the underlying matter, which was granted. Clark also sought to unseal all sealed court records, arguing that the court (and the parties seeking sealing) had failed to apply the five-part Ishikawa test for sealing or redacting court records. The trial court denied Clark's Motion to Unseal, reasoning that the public has no interest in court documents that were never used by the court in making a decision (the parties entered into a settlement). Clark timely appealed the trial court's order. Result: Division I issued Opinion on May 11, 2010, concluding that the trial court was not in error. Clark timely moved for Reconsideration, but the Court denied the motion on June 30, 2010.

D'Amico v. Jefferson County

Oct 20, 2009

OUTCOME: Summary judgment granted for Plaintiff D'Amico

Facts: D'Amico makes a Public Records Act request for the phone records of the 3 county commissioners. The county provides the records, but with the outgoing phone numbers of one of the commissioners ... heavily redacted. The county cited RCW 42.56.210(1) as the justification for the redactions. D'Amico asked for confirmation in writing that the county intended to rely on .210(1) in making its redactions--the county confirmed. D'Amico brought a cause of action alleging that the county had failed to cite an actual exemption in withholding public records, as .210(1) is not an exemption from disclosure. The county responded by citing an actual exemption. The county argued that the phone numbers were "personal" in nature and thus exempt from disclosure as it would be an invasion of privacy (as per RCW 42.56.050) if the phone numbers were disclosed. Result: After a hearing for the parties' cross summary judgment motions, the trial court granted plaintiff's summary judgment and denied the county's motion. Shortly thereafter, the county delivered the unredacted phone records to D'Amico. The court also awarded D'Amico the reasonable attorney fees, costs and penalties that are mandatory for a prevailing party under the PRA.

Harold Carey v. Mason County

May 07, 2009

OUTCOME: Plaintiff prevailed following trial.

Facts: Plaintiff made a number of public records requests of Mason County via email. His initial reuqests were ignored. Plaintiff discovered that his requests were deleted at some point by the Count ... y public records officer, and his email address was placed on a blocked sender list causing future emails to go immediately into the "junk mail" folder of the public records officer. After discovering this mishandling of his requests, Plaintiff made a number of subsequent requests to determine how the County handles requests and trains its employees in the handling of requests for public records. The County argued that it never "recieved" the initial requests because no one at the County read the emails prior to their deletion, and at least some of the reuqests went straight to junk mail. Result: The case proceeded to trial and the Court found that email requests were proper, and the County had recieved the requests and violated the Public Records Act by failing to respond to the requests. Additionally, the County was ordered to search for and produce various records regarding County policies and procedures for handling public records requests. Plaintiff was awarded attorney fees, costs, and statutory penalties for prevailing claims.

Dochnahl v. Petersen

Feb 24, 2009

OUTCOME: Dismissal of lawsuit.

Plaintiffs brought defamation suit for comments made by defendant in public, in news articles, and on her blog. Plaintiffs were unable to articulate damages and the statements were opinions. However. ... Allied Law Group entered the case after the Court ordered Ms. Petersen to turn over a forensic copy of her hard drive to Plaintiffs. The order was then reversed prior to the computer being produced, the action was dismissed, and sanctions were awarded against Plaintiff's attorney.

Yakima Herald-Republic v. Yakima County

N/A

OUTCOME: Pending (Washington State Supreme Court)

Facts: Newspaper sought sealed court documents related to the County expenditure of over $2 million of county funds to pay for defense of two capital murder suspects under the Public Records Act. The ... records sought included spreadsheets, and other billing and expense records--most of which were circulated to county executive offices. The expenditures were approved by a judge functioning in an administrative capacity and sealed at the request of defense counsel. Trial court granted injunction under the PRA precluding disclosure of the records, concluding that Nast v. Michels, 107 Wn.2d 307, 730 P.2d 54 (1986) stands for the principle that courts are not "agencies" under the PRA, and thus court records are not attainable under that statute. Herald sought direct review, which was granted. Result: Pending. Oral argument occurred on March 9, 2010.

O'Neill v. City of Shoreline

N/A

OUTCOME: Pending (Washington State Supreme Court)

Facts: Woman present at a public meeting of the city council makes Public Records Act request for an email referenced at the same meeting--the deputy mayor referred to the woman as the author of the em ... ail, which she was not. City provided only paper copies of the email, with alterations, instead of the email in its native electronic format (with metadata intact); woman made subsequent PRA requests to get the metadata for the email so she could see how, and to whom, it was sent, received, etc. The email was later inadvertently destroyed, very near the time of a specific request for the metadata of the email itself. Woman brings suit, and files a motion to set a show cause hearing. Trial court dismissed the case sua sponte without holding a show cause hearing, and after considering evidence presented by both sides. Woman appealed. Court of Appeals ruled that at least some portion of the requested metadata is a public record and that remand was necessary to determine whether the original email (still not provided) could be located or recovered. The Court did not rule on the dismissal issue. The Supreme Court accepted review in April of 2008. Outcome: Pending. Oral argument set for March 16, 2010.

In re D.F.F.

N/A

OUTCOME: Pending (Washington State Supreme Court)

Facts: Woman with mental disabilities, D.F.F., was involuntarily committed under RCW 71.05. Pursuant to a superior court rule promulgated by the State Supreme Court, MPR 1.3, all proceedings under th ... at statute are by default closed to the public absent a request to open by the committee or his or her counsel. After being committed, D.F.F. appealed the order of commitment, and argued that the rule violated Article I, Section 10 of the State Constitution, which requires that "justice be administered openly." The Court of Appeals at Division I agreed, ruling that MPR 1.3 was unconstitutional because it precluded a court from making the individualized determination of constitutionality pursuant to Seattle Times v. Ishikawa, 97 Wn.2d 30, 649 P.2d 716 (1982), that is necessary for any attempt to seal court documents or close court proceedings. See In re D.F.F., 144 Wn. App. 214, 183 P.3d 302 (2008). The State appealed, and review was granted by the Supreme Court in 2008. Several newspaper associations sponsored an Amicus Brief authored by Allied Law Group, LLC, to enforce the open court mandate of Article I, Section 10. Oral argument was held in September of 2009. Outcome: Pending.

Yousoufian v. Ron Sims, King County

N/A

OUTCOME: Pending (Washington State Supreme Court)

Van Laeken v. King County

N/A

OUTCOME: Settlement with release of requested records.

Plaintiffs made public records request for false complaint complaint made to King County Department of Development and Environmental Services. King County redacted the identity of the individual who m ... ade the complaint. Lawsuit was filed to obtain unredacted complaint. During the course of the action it became apparent that there was an additional letter to the County from the individual requesting anonymity and containing false allegations. Both suits settled for more than Plaintiffs had spent in legal fees and unredacted records were released.