Seattle, WA
Communications and media Lawyer at Seattle, WA
Practice Areas: Communications & Media, Appeals ... +2 more
OUTCOME: Awaiting decision, oral argument available at http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2012090014A
Appeal to Washington State Supreme Court on whether or not Governor has an executive privilege based on separation of powers doctrine that can bar production of records under Public Records Act
OUTCOME: Summary Judgment granted for Defendant
Facts: Plaintiff police officer brings federal claim against several parties, alleging violation of Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and related state law claims. Defendant is an attorney that represented ... a party that the plaintiff had sued in a prior, and dismissed, state action. Defendant moves for summary judgment. Reporter Chuck Allen, from the Quincy Valley Post-Register, wrote an article in March of 2009 related to the previous lawsuit. Plaintiff issues subpoena to Allen in the federal case, and then moves to compel his testimony related to sources for his article after Allen asserts his journalist privilege at a deposition. Allen acquires private counsel to challenge the motion to compel testimony, arguing that the state and federal journalist privilege precludes Allen's testimony because Plaintiff had not met his burden to overcome that privilege. Result: Summary judgment granted for Defendant. Plaintiff appeals dismissal to 9th Circuit.
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.
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. A ... llied 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.
OUTCOME: Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and Settlement
Facts: A prison legal newspaper made several requests under the Public Records Act, focusing its requests on records related to investigations of medical misconduct by the Department’s employees, incl ... uding instances of disciplinary action taken against those employees by the Department. The Department provided the records, but redacted the names and identifying information of the disciplined medical staff, witnesses and patients. Result: The Supreme Court of Washington overturned the appellate court, rejecting its conclusion that the information was exempt under the “specific investigative records” exemption in the PRA. The Court, following the mandate of the PRA to construe exemptions narrowly, concluded that records related to the care provided to inmates by the Department or the discipline of Department employees are not “law enforcement” as contemplated by the cited exemption under the PRA, and rejected the Department’s attempt to broadly define “identifying information” as to all persons in the records. As the prevailing party the newspaper was entitled to its attorney fees, costs and penalties, which resulted in the largest PRA settlement in Washington State history.
OUTCOME: Judgment in favor of Defendant
Facts: Retail store owners filed a defamation action against a television station and a reporter for allegedly making false statements and omitting material facts in a news story. The issue in the ca ... se was whether publication of otherwise true statements without publishing other material facts can support an action for defamation by implication. Result: The Washington State Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, and reinstated the summary judgment granted by the trial court in favor of the defendant media. Specifically, the Court concluded that the alleged omitted facts would not have negated the alleged defamatory implication of the statements made by the defendants and that plaintiff could not made the threshold showing the falsity of the statements made.
OUTCOME: Judgment in favor of Defendant
Facts: A man found to be a sexually-violent predator was ordered committed to a treatment center. The detainee challenged, on various constitutional grounds, the Community Protection Act of 1990 (RCW ... 71.09), and the conditions of his treatment and sought release. Result: The Supreme Court of Washington denied his arguments, concluding that the conditions of care under the above statue are not criminal in nature, but civil, and are not unconstitutional. Any challenge to the adequacy of the confinement thus needed to be addressed within the administration of the confining institution.
OUTCOME: Judgment for the newspaper/requestor
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. The Washington State Supreme Court held that records outside of the courts in the hands of the County were public records and subkject to disclosuire if not exempt. Following remand, more than 3,000 pages of records posssessed by the County, outside of the Judiciary, were identified, found not to be exempt by the trial judge, and ordered produced. The County was fined $10 a day for all the 1170 days records had not been produced, including the period during the appeal, and 100% of the fees and costs incurred on remand and 25% of the fees and costs incurred prior to the appeal. Washington State Supreme Court Oral argument occurred on March 9, 2010, available at http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2010030002B
OUTCOME: Oral argument available at http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2010030003D Trial court decision overturned and matter remanded; trial court awarded more than $500K to Plaintiffs
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 and issued an opinion declaring metadata to be a public record. The case was remanded to the trial court for the City to produce the records or establish why it should not be found to have violated the PRA. Outcome: Pending. Oral argument set for March 16, 2010.
OUTCOME: Trial court rule declared unconstitutional
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. The Court ruled that the court rule was unconstitutional and confirmed the presumption of openness of all court proceedings. Outcome: Pending.