432 P.3d 1235
Wash. Ct. App.2019Background
- Richard Eggleston requested Asotin County’s legal costs (attorney invoices) for litigation involving him under the Public Records Act (PRA).
- The county filed an ex parte order to show cause seeking to withhold the attorney invoices entirely under RCW 42.56.290 or, alternatively, to heavily redact them; it submitted unredacted invoices to the court for in camera review and sought guidance on redactions.
- Eggleston opposed permanent withholding and objected to the county’s practice of delivering unredacted documents for a court determination instead of proposing redactions in good faith; he stated redaction (not wholesale withholding) was appropriate where attorney mental impressions or privileged material would be revealed.
- The trial court concluded the invoices were subject to exemption but ordered the county to submit proposed redactions; after reviewing the county’s submissions the court ordered production of the narrowly redacted invoices.
- The trial court denied Eggleston attorney fees, costs, and per diem penalties, finding he had not filed an affirmative action and that the county had prevailed on selective redaction; Eggleston appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Eggleston's Argument | Asotin County's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a requester must initiate court action to be a prevailing party under RCW 42.56.550(4) | A requester need not commence the action; any person who prevails against an agency in court is eligible for fees | The fee remedy applies only when the requester commences an action "seeking the right" to inspect/copy or get a timely response | Court: Fees apply to any requester who prevails in court enforcing PRA rights, regardless of who initiated the action |
| Whether Eggleston prevailed so as to recover fees | He prevailed on key issues: invoices could not be withheld in full and county must perform good-faith redactions before court review | County argued it prevailed because the court allowed selective redactions and denied wholesale production | Court: Eggleston prevailed on substantial issues (prohibition on wholesale withholding; county’s duty to propose redactions) and is entitled to fees for those successes |
| Whether the county’s pre-review of unredacted invoices and request for court guidance on redactions was proper | County should have proposed redactions in good faith before submitting documents to court; delivering unredacted invoices to delay disclosure is improper | County sought court guidance and in camera review, citing uncertainty and limited experience | Court: Agency must bear burden to justify redactions; county’s procedure was improper and Eggleston prevailed on this issue |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to consider per diem penalties | Court must consider awarding per diem penalties to a prevailing requester | Court declined to exercise discretion because it found Eggleston did not prevail | Court: Trial court abused its discretion by refusing to consider per diem penalties based on erroneous prevailing-party finding; must reconsider penalties on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Det. of Williams, 147 Wn.2d 476 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Dep’t of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1 (use statutory text and related provisions to discern legislative intent)
- Kittitas County v. Allphin, 2 Wn. App. 2d 782 (judicial review under PRA may be initiated by agencies or third parties)
- Spokane Research & Def. Fund v. City of Spokane, 155 Wn.2d 89 ("prevailing" relates to whether records should have been disclosed)
- City of Lakewood v. Koenig, 182 Wn.2d 87 (fees where agency response failed PRA requirements)
- Neighborhood Alliance of Spokane County v. Spokane County, 172 Wn.2d 702 (party need not have caused disclosure to be entitled to fees)
- Yakima County v. Yakima Herald-Republic, 170 Wn.2d 775 (fees may vindicate right to inspect/copy or receive a response)
- Sanders v. State, 169 Wn.2d 827 (issue-by-issue fee allocation; legal questions reviewed de novo)
- Confederated Tribes of Chehalis Reservation v. Johnson, 135 Wn.2d 734 (purpose of attorney-fees provision: encourage disclosure and deter improper denials)
- Lindberg v. Kitsap County, 133 Wn.2d 729 (same PRA fee-policy context)
- Council House, Inc. v. Hawk, 136 Wn. App. 153 (abuse of discretion standard)