The document being sought was a seating chart of the County’s Building and Planning Department where the names of the new occupants (one of whom was the son of a County Commissioner) had allegedly been placed on the seating chart some time before the employment selection process was even completed. The date that the seating chart was first created was therefore crucial. But the County made no effort to look for the document on the hard drive of the old computer just recently used by the person who had generated the chart. The Court held that a search of the digital hard drive on the old computer was mandatory in these circumstances.

Not only had the County not searched for electronic records that were requested where those electronic records could easily have been searched, but the County later refused to answer interrogatories about its actions in the PRA lawsuit eventually brought by the Neighborhood Alliance. In perhaps the most far reaching part of its decision, the Supreme Court held that a PRA lawsuit is like any other, and the defendant agency must respond to reasonable discovery requests, including interrogatories and depositions, unless it is first able to secure a protective order from the court.

In other parts of the case, the Supreme Court held that (1) the remedial penalties of the PRA are triggered when the agency fails to disclose and produce records, and any later release of the documents only serves to stop the clock, but not eliminate, the daily penalties; (2) no causation is required to prevail in a PRA lawsuit – subsequent events and subsequent disclosure do not affect the wrongfulness of the agency’s initial failure to disclose the documents; (3) when the trial court finds that the PRA has been violated, daily penalties are mandatory, and only the amount is subject to the trial court’s discretion; (4) the fact that the requestor of documents may already have a copy of the documents does not relieve an agency of the obligation to produce those same documents in response to the request; and (5) there is always an obligation to “disclose” the existence of requested documents, even if there is an exemption from an obligation to “produce” the documents.
 

The case arose when Daniel Kirk, a Vietnam veteran, sued his former employer, Schindler Elevator, under the federal False Claims Act. He asserted that Schindler, a government contractor, had submitted false claims by failing to file Vietnam Veterans Act reporting forms that were required under Schindler’s government contract. Kirk had confirmed the lack of Vietnam Veterans Act reporting through a FOIA request.

The False Claims Act, however, has a “public disclosure bar.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(A). That bar precludes a whistleblower suit based on information (including reports) obtained through a FOIA request. The Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and rejected an argument that the word “report” should receive a narrower meaning than simply “something that gives information.” The Supreme Court looked to the ordinary meaning of the word “report.” Citing dictionary definitions, the Supreme Court defined the term to include “something that gives information,” a “notification,” and “[a]n official or formal statement of facts or proceedings.” As a result, the disclosure of public records in response to a FOIA request constitutes a “report” and a False Claims Act case cannot be maintained based upon such a disclosure.

An action commenced and the trial court and Court of Appeals agreed with the Attorney General. On December 3, 2010, the Supreme Court reversed, holding “a disclosure of state employee birth dates would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy and therefore exempted from disclosure” under the Texas public disclosure law.

In its consideration, the Supreme Court made specific reference to the public harm caused by identity theft and that the availability of birth dates may facilitate identity theft. The Texas Supreme Court noted other decisions, particularly court decisions under the Federal Freedom of Information Act, that “birth dates implicate substantial privacy interests.”

The three dissenters on the seven-member Court found that not only that there was no doubt the General Assembly was aware of Philadelphia’s long-standing, preexisting practice of receiving public comment in special meetings conducted by Council committees, and sought to preserve it, but that testimony at the committee level was more effective. “In this case, and consistently with the practice in Philadelphia for over half a century, appellants were allowed to provide input to the committee in advance of the Council meeting at which the bill was passed, so it appears they actually had a more realistic opportunity to participate in shaping the legislation, rather than speaking at the very meeting where the vote was taken.”

In contrast, Washington’s Open Public Meetings Act explicitly references the fact that testimony may be taken at committee meetings. RCW 42.30.020(2) defines “Governing body” to include “the multimember board, commission, committee, council, or other policy or rule-making body of a public agency or any committee thereof when the committee acts on behalf of the governing body, conducts hearings, or takes testimony or public comment.” (Emphasis added.)

In fact, a committee or other subsidiary body created by the full council or commission in Washington is required to observe the Open Public Meetings Act and allow testimony to be given in public. In 2001, for example, the City of Lakewood’s adult cabaret ordinance was held invalid because a Planning Advisory Board created by the City Council took testimony about the proposed ordinance in closed door sessions. Clark v. City of Lakewood, 259 F.3d 996, (9th Cir. 2001).

There is, however, always a balance between allowing for public testimony and the need for efficiency and decorum. See, Steve DiJulio’s article: “Balancing the Council’s Right to Manage Meetings With Expectations of Citizens.”
 

Bardwell, the public records act requester submitted three requests, one for the prosecutor’s document retention schedule; one for correspondence between the Cuyahoga County Board of Commissioners and a local newspaper; and, the third for drafts of an economic development agreement involving the county and private developers. The records-retention schedule was provided the same day; and the next day the prosecutor provided to Bardwell the correspondence with the local newspaper. The prosecutor also (again, one day after the request was received) informed Bardwell in writing that drafts of contracts were not subject to disclosure, and advised: “When an agreement is finalized and ready to be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners for approval, the final agreement and drafts will be made available.”

The court of appeals decided that “Bardwell’s filing of a complaint for mandamus, which was groundless in fact and legal argument, can only be the result of a willful action and constitutes bad faith. Thus, we find that Bardwell consciously violated [Court] Rule 11 and that sanctions must be imposed.” The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not abuse its discretion in awarding the sanctions. The Court noted ten reasons justifying the sanctions, including: (1) the fact that the complaint was filed one day after the records were in fact provided; not supported by a sworn affidavit as required by local rule; and, not amended after additional documents were provided; (2) all non-exempt records were promptly provided, mooting the records claim; (3) Bardwell did not provide for a transcript of the Rule 11 hearing, or submit exhibits, so there was literally nothing for the court to use as a basis to overturn the lower court’s discretionary decision; and,(4) Bardwell failed even to file a brief in opposition to the prosecutor’s motion for summary judgment, yet appealed the summary judgment ruling.

The lengthy dissent notes that grounds existed as a matter of law for the complaint; as drafts of contracts are not necessarily exempt from public disclosure.

This round of appeals began when the trial court decided the daily penalty should be $15. The appellate court reversed, and remanded for a higher daily penalty determination by the trial court, whose discretion is virtually unlimited by statute. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, but with a twist. In a highly unusual decision criticized by the dissent, the majority declined to issue yet another mandate to the trial court, but instead determined the daily penalty itself -- $45 per day. The resulting penalty -- $371,000.00 -‑ is the highest PRA judgment on record in this State. As the dissent notes, it is not readily apparent how the Supreme Court applied its factors to come up with the $45 daily penalty. While the majority’s goal was to guide trial courts and thus limit the number of PRA appeals, it remains to be seen whether the nonexclusive 16-factor approach will achieve that end.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in the case in the spring and issue a decision by the end of June 2010.

What does this mean for other PRA cases?  If you have a case at the penalty stage, I'd probably seek a stay because unless the Court adopts the identical test,  if you do it now you'll just have to do it again later.

Original Post

The Washington State Supreme Court has withdrawn its January Opinion in the long-running Yousoufian v. Office of Ron Sims case.  In that Opinion, the Supreme Court had ruled that the $124,000 Public Records Act penalty award against King County was too small.  The Opinion adopted 16 factors trial courts should use to set penalty amounts.  For more details on the Opinion, see this MRSC article.

King County had moved to have the Opinion withdrawn after it was revealed that the Opinion author, Justice Richard Sanders, had a pending appeal in a Public Records Act case, where he was relying on his Yousoufian Opinion to argue that his judgment against the State should be increased.  In light of the recent U.S. Supreme Court holding in Caperton v. Massey that a West Virginia Supreme Court Justice's decision not to recuse himself violated due process, this result is not surprising. 

Here is an article in the Seattle Times on the Supreme Court's ruling.  Here is a post on the Supreme Court Blog about the order. 

Here is an analysis of the order from the Supreme Court of Washington Blog by EFF. 

Here are posts on the ruling at the Bellingham Herald,  Washington Policy Blog, the Og-Blog and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press blog.

Foster Pepper represented the City of Federal Way in this case.

Steve Maynard, the requester in Morgan, summarizes oral arguments in this TNT article: "Attorneys, Supreme Court justices joust over Federal Way judge investigation." 

Here is a TNT editorial on the Morgan case:   "FWay court probe should be public"

Here's a nice summary of the issues in both Morgan and Koenig from the Supreme Court of Washington Blog by the Evergreen Freedom Foundation. 

Original Post

The Washington State Supreme Court arguments for Morgan v. City of Federal Way and City of Federal Way v. Koenig (like all arguments) were televised and available on the web on TVW.   For more information on the issues in the case, see this post. 

Here are the videos: 

Morgan v. City of Federal Way. 

John Schochet, representing Judge Morgan, argues first. 

James Beck, representing the Tacoma News Tribune, starts at 17:20.

Ramsey Ramerman, representing the City of Federal Way, starts at 25:10.

John Schochet's rebuttal starts at 38:45. 

City of Federal Way v. Koenig

William Crittenden, representing Mr. Koenig, starts.

Ramsey Ramerman, representing the City of Federal Way, begins at 13:20.

Mr. Crittenden's rebuttal begins at 30:45.