Department of Social & Health Services v. Parvin
184 Wash. 2d 741
| Wash. | 2015Background
- Dependency and termination proceedings were filed concerning minor M.H.P.; parents Bramlett and Parvin sought court-appointed experts funded by public funds.
- Parents filed multiple ex parte motions for public funding of experts accompanied by ex parte motions to seal; a King County judge and the head of the Office of Public Defense signed funding and sealing orders without notice to the State, CASA, or public.
- CASA discovered the sealed orders while preparing for trial; the Department moved to unseal and for show-cause; the trial judge issued a post hoc memorandum defending the ex parte sealing practice.
- Court of Appeals upheld the sealing practice (majority view: GR 15 inapplicable to protect parents’ work product; dissent urged consideration of countervailing interests and redaction).
- Washington Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether the practice complied with GR 15 and article I, § 10 (Ishikawa factors) and whether due process or statutory rights required the ex parte procedure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ex parte sealing of motions/orders complied with GR 15 | Parents: sealing was necessary to protect attorneys’ work product and should mirror criminal CrR 3.1(f) practice | Dept/CASA: GR 15 requires notice, hearing, written findings; ex parte sealing violated the rule | Court held ex parte sealing violated GR 15: notice, hearing, and findings required; indiscriminate sealing improper |
| Whether CrR 3.1(f) criminal exemption applies in termination (civil) cases | Parents: criminal-rule practice justifies ex parte sealing in termination cases because parents’ interests mirror criminal defendants’ | Dept/CASA: CrR 3.1(f) applies only in criminal context; GR 15 expressly exempts CrR 3.1(f) motions and contains no civil/juvenile parallel | Court held CrR 3.1(f) does not apply; omission from civil/juvenile rules means no blanket civil exemption under GR 15 |
| Whether work-product doctrine or right to counsel/statute (RCW 10.101) permits sealing without GR 15 protections | Parents: work-product and statutory right to effective counsel justify shielding funding motions from notice to prevent piracy of trial strategy | Dept/CASA: work-product is a discovery protection (not a constitutional right); civil/cr rules provide work-product protections and redaction; statute does not override GR 15 or open-courts clause | Court held work-product is not a constitutional trump; rules (CR 26, CR 35) protect trial preparation and redaction is the proper, least-restrictive measure; statutory right does not excuse noncompliance with GR 15 |
| Whether blanket sealing violated Washington Constitution art. I, § 10 (open administration) and Ishikawa factors | Parents/trial court: sealing protects parental interests and counsel’s preparation; asserted need for confidentiality outweighs public access | Dept/CASA: sealing must meet Ishikawa (need, opportunity to object, least restrictive means, weighing interests, narrow breadth/duration); blanket ex parte sealing fails that test | Court held sealing violated article I, § 10 because the trial court failed to apply Ishikawa; blanket ex parte sealing failed all five factors and courts must perform individualized Ishikawa analysis; redaction preferred where appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Seattle Times Co. v. Ishikawa, 97 Wn.2d 30 (Wash. 1982) (establishes five-factor test for closure/sealing under state constitution)
- Allied Daily Newspapers of Wash. v. Eikenberry, 121 Wn.2d 205 (Wash. 1993) (applies Ishikawa; strikes statute that mandated broad sealing without individualized inquiry)
- Hundtofte v. Encarnación, 181 Wn.2d 1 (Wash. 2014) (standard: sealing decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion; legal standards reviewed de novo)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (U.S. 1976) (three-part due process balancing test applied to procedures)
- Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1981) (parental termination context; limits on federal due process right to appointed counsel)
- Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (U.S. 1947) (origin of work-product doctrine as a discovery protection)
- Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance, 131 Wn.2d 484 (Wash. 1997) (framework for excluding witnesses and assessing sanctions for discovery violations)