Christopher Cook, Keith Evans, Joseph Jones, Christopher Robinson v. Doc, 76012-2

Background

The Washington DOC contracted Global Tel-Link (GTL) to operate inmate phones and store call logs; historically DOC supplied logs from GTL in response to PRA requests.
After a 2013 security incident where an inmate (a gang member) accessed another inmate's logs (a confidential informant), DOC issued Newsbrief 13-01 advising staff that GTL-maintained phone records "are not agency public records" and directing a standardized denial response.
Four inmates (Cook, Evans, Jones, Robinson) requested their phone logs; DOC responded per Newsbrief 13-01 that the logs were not public records because maintained by an outside vendor.
Litigation followed; after a Franklin County ruling that phone logs are public records, DOC reversed its position and provided the requested logs. The trial court nevertheless awarded statutory daily monetary penalties to each inmate, concluding DOC acted in bad faith by failing to (1) disclose the internal exception in Newsbrief 13-01 (records used in agency business may be disclosable) and (2) conduct any search to determine whether those exceptions applied.
DOC appealed, arguing its denial was based on an objectively reasonable, good-faith interpretation of its policy and that its conduct did not rise to the heightened "bad faith" standard needed for inmate penalties under the PRA.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DOC acted in bad faith under RCW 42.56.565 by denying phone logs and thus owes inmate penalties	Inmates: DOC's denial was incomplete and conduct amounted to bad faith because it failed to disclose the policy's exception and did not search to see if exception applied	DOC: Newsbrief 13-01 reflected a reasonable belief that GTL records were not public; DOC followed the policy in good faith and promptly provided records once it changed position	Held: No bad faith; DOC's actions were objectively reasonable under the circumstances and did not warrant harsh monetary penalties
Whether failure to mention an internal note in the denial equates to willful or wanton conduct	Inmates: Omission of the exception misled requesters and supports a finding of wanton indifference	DOC: The internal note was narrow and tentative; the plain language instructed denial and did not create an affirmative duty to disclose the internal caveat	Held: The internal note was an internal guideline and its omission did not demonstrate the requisite wanton or willful indifference
Whether DOC's failure to search GTL/investigation files before denying requests was unreasonable	Inmates: DOC failed to perform any search consistent with its policy, which supports bad faith	DOC: The policy and Newsbrief reasonably limited DOC's obligation; DOC applied the policy consistently and later complied when it changed position	Held: Under all circumstances, DOC's decision not to search did not amount to bad faith; reasonableness is determined case-by-case and here penalties are not warranted
Whether inmates are entitled to attorney fees and costs after DOC conceded logs are public records	Inmates: Prevailing party under RCW 42.56.550(4) is entitled to costs and reasonable fees	DOC: Concedes remand appropriate to calculate costs/fees after reversal of penalty awards	Held: Remanded to trial court to revise award of costs and attorney fees consistent with this opinion

Key Cases Cited

Faulkner v. Wash. Dep't of Corr., 183 Wn. App. 93, 332 P.3d 1136 (2014) (explaining bad faith standard for PRA inmate penalties requires wanton or willful conduct)
Francis v. Dep't of Corrs, 178 Wn. App. 42, 313 P.3d 457 (2013) (an agency may face penalties if it fails to conduct a reasonable search consistent with its policies)
City of Federal Way v. Koenig, 167 Wn.2d 341, 217 P.3d 1172 (2009) (standard of review for PRA agency action)
Progressive Animal Welfare Soc'y v. Univ. of Wash., 125 Wn.2d 243, 884 P.2d 592 (1994) (de novo review where record consists of documentary evidence)