Arthur West v. Port Of Tacoma, 48110-3

In Dec 2007 West requested extensive Port of Tacoma records about the South Sound Logistics Center; the Port acknowledged the request and gave estimated staggered production dates and produced multiple installments while citing technical difficulties and large volume.
West sued on Jan 14, 2008, alleging PRA violations and seeking disclosure and penalties before the Port completed production; the Port continued to produce records, provided privilege logs, and a special master later reviewed withheld records.
The suit was dismissed by the superior court; this court previously vacated an earlier CR 41 dismissal on procedural-notice grounds and remanded for further proceedings in 2014.
On remand the Port moved under CR 12(b)(6)/CR 56; the superior court granted summary dismissal, reasoning the suit was prematurely filed while the Port was still producing records.
West appealed the dismissal and also sought review of the superior court’s denial of a motion to amend; this court declined to reach the amendment issue because it was not designated in the notice of appeal.
The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal, holding Hobbs v. State controls: a PRA suit to compel production may be filed only after an agency has denied access or otherwise taken final action indicating it will not provide responsive records; fees and costs on appeal were awarded to the Port.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether West could sue before the agency completed production under the PRA	West argued Port missed its self‑imposed production dates and suit was necessary to compel compliance	Port argued it was still producing records and communicating estimates; suit was premature	Held: Suit was premature; PRA requires a denial or final action before judicial review (affirmed dismissal)
Whether Hobbs v. State is binding or dicta	West argued Hobbs was dicta or distinguishable on facts and statute subsection	Port relied on Hobbs and related precedent that installment production without final denial precludes suit	Held: Hobbs is binding and controls; its holding that final denial is prerequisite is not dicta and applies here
Whether the Port’s missed estimated dates made its conduct a denial	West asserted missed dates showed bad faith and justified immediate suit	Port cited Andrews/Hobbs: PRA does not require strict adherence to agency estimates if acting diligently	Held: Missed estimates alone do not constitute denial absent evidence of bad faith or cessation of production
Eligibility for appellate fees/costs	West sought fees as prevailing party under PRA	Port sought fees for frivolous appeal under RAP and RCW 4.84.185	Held: West not prevailing; Port awarded fees and costs on appeal as West’s appeal lacked reasonable possibility of reversal

Hobbs v. State, 183 Wn. App. 925 (court held PRA suit is premature unless agency has taken final action denying records)
Andrews v. Washington State Patrol, 183 Wn. App. 644 (agency need not strictly meet self‑imposed production dates if acting diligently)
Nissen v. Pierce County, 183 Wn.2d 863 (PRA cases reviewed de novo)
Worthington v. Westnet, 182 Wn.2d 500 (standard for CR 12(b)(6) reviewed de novo and hypothetical facts considered)
Violante v. King County Fire Dist. No. 20, 114 Wn. App. 565 (older division precedent on PRA timing cited but not controlling here)
Richmond Screw Anchor Co. v. United States, 275 U.S. 331 (discussed principle that alternative holdings are authoritative, not mere dicta)