Department of Corrections v. Jeffrey R. McKee
199 Wash. App. 635
| Wash. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Jeffrey McKee, a DOC inmate, submitted at least 336 Public Records Act (PRA) requests to the Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC), many in batches, and filed multiple PRA lawsuits and settlements producing significant payouts.
- DOC alleged McKee organized and encouraged others to submit PRA requests and litigate to extract settlements and copying costs (including letters suggesting profit-driven PRA litigation and use of third parties/paralegals).
- DOC sought a preliminary injunction under RCW 42.56.565 to enjoin McKee from inspecting or copying nonexempt records, asserting subsection (2)(c)(i) allows injunctions where requests are made to “harass or intimidate the agency or its employees.”
- The trial court construed (2)(c)(i) narrowly—applying only where inmates seek private employee information to harass employees—and largely denied DOC’s motion.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo, considered statutory text, the factors in RCW 42.56.565(3), and legislative history, and concluded subpoenas for financially-motivated, burdensome PRA requests can fall within (2)(c)(i).
- The appellate court reversed the trial court’s statutory construction and remanded for further proceedings without directing a specific injunction because material factual disputes and scope determinations remain for the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DOC) | Defendant's Argument (McKee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RCW 42.56.565(2)(c)(i) covers prolific, profit-motivated PRA requests that burden the agency | (DOC) Requests made to generate litigation/settlements and profit harass or intimidate the agency and are enjoinable | (McKee) The provision only covers requests aimed at obtaining private employee information to harass employees; profit-driven litigation is addressed elsewhere | Held: (2)(c)(i) encompasses requests that harass or intimidate the agency itself, including burdensome requests made for financial gain when considered with (3) factors. |
| Whether RCW 42.56.565(1) (limits penalties) makes (2)(c)(i) redundant if (2)(c)(i) covers profit-motivated requests | (DOC) (implicit) both subsections serve complementary roles to address burdensome inmate PRA abuse | (McKee) Subsection (1) targets profit-driven abuse; interpreting (2)(c)(i) to do the same would render (1) superfluous | Held: Subsection (1) and (2)(c)(i) are complementary — (1) limits penalties for good-faith agency errors; (2)(c)(i) can be used to enjoin future burdensome requests. |
| Scope of collateral factors courts may consider under RCW 42.56.565(3) | (DOC) The statutory factors support enjoining prolific/burdensome requests (e.g., number/type of requests, requestor’s statements, burden) | (McKee) N/A (disputed facts on motivations and burden) | Held: The listed factors support restraining even first-time requests if sufficiently burdensome and made for improper purpose; courts should consider these in determining injunctive relief. |
| Whether appellate court should order a preliminary injunction | (DOC) Urged reversal with directions to enter a preliminary injunction | (McKee) Opposed; factual disputes remain | Held: Reversed statutory interpretation but remanded; appellate court declined to direct entry of an injunction because material factual disputes and scope issues must be resolved by trial court. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe, 90 Wn.2d 123 (1978) (PRA is a strong mandate for broad disclosure; exemptions narrowly construed)
- State v. Armendariz, 160 Wn.2d 106 (2007) (plain meaning is first guide to statutory interpretation)
- State v. Roggenkamp, 153 Wn.2d 614 (2005) (each word in a statute must be accorded meaning)
- Burt v. Dep't of Corr., 168 Wn.2d 828 (2010) (background on inmate PRA abuse and Parmelee pattern of obtaining employee private information)
- Francis v. Dep't of Corr., 178 Wn. App. 42 (2013) (agency bad-faith in PRA response and consequences)
- Bainbridge Island Police Guild v. City of Puyallup, 172 Wn.2d 398 (2011) (appellate substitution of findings when evidence presented by affidavits may be appropriate)