Estate of Jonny Torres v. Kennewick School District
36886-6
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 28, 2021Background
- Sixth-grade student Jonny Torres collapsed after school; school security saved some September 7 video to a flash drive but cameras only record on motion and retain 30 days of footage.
- The Estate served a broad PRA request (Dec. 29) seeking all records relating to Jonny; the District produced some email and video material (March–June) but Estate asserted hours of video were missing.
- The Estate sued under the Public Records Act; cross-motions for summary judgment in May 2019 addressed only whether the District produced all security video in its possession; the superior court granted summary judgment for the District on that video-only claim.
- In separate federal wrongful-death litigation, the District produced additional records (e.g., PowerSchool entries and emails) that the Estate contended were responsive to its PRA request but had not been provided earlier.
- The Estate sought to add the federal-discovery materials on appeal under RAP 9.11; the Court of Appeals commissioner allowed additional evidence and directed the superior court to decide whether the newly produced records created triable PRA issues.
- The superior court declined to consider PRA claims based on the newly discovered records, treating its 2019 ruling as dispositive; the Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the video claim but reversed the court’s refusal to evaluate the newly produced records and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment dismissing the Estate’s security video-related PRA claim was improper | Estate: District equivocated and failed to explain missing footage; PRA requires agencies to disclose or explain nonexistence | District: It produced all video in its possession; cameras delete ordinary-course unpreserved footage; no exemption/explanation requirement when records do not exist | Held: Affirmed — District produced all video it had; failure to explain losses was not a PRA violation because PRA does not require agencies to research or explain non-existent records |
| Whether newly produced federal-discovery records may be considered on remand under RAP 9.11 | Estate: Additional records are responsive to the original PRA request and likely create triable issues; RAP 9.11 relief appropriate | District: The Estate’s complaint focused on video; commissioner’s grant overbroad and superior court should not reopen the full case | Held: Commissioner’s RAP 9.11 order stands; superior court erred by refusing to consider whether the newly produced records present PRA violations requiring trial; remand for consideration |
| Whether the District’s search/response obligations required an explanation for missing records or a broader inquiry beyond produced documents | Estate: Neighborhood Alliance and Yakima Herald-Republic require adequate searches and explanations when records appear missing or agency equivocated | District: Those cases apply to withheld/redacted records or inadequate searches, not to ordinary-course deletion where no responsive records remain | Held: Court clarifies PRA requires adequate searches and explanations when records are withheld or a search is inadequate, but here no adequate-search issue was raised for the video (deleted in ordinary course), so no violation occurred |
| Whether appellate attorney fees should be awarded to the Estate under the PRA | Estate: Prevailing party on appeal entitled to fees | District: Estate has not prevailed on any PRA claim on appeal yet | Held: Denied for now — Estate did not prevail on the video claim and has not yet prevailed on claims based on the newly produced records; fees not awarded on appeal at this stage |
Key Cases Cited
- LaPlante v. State, 85 Wn.2d 154 (Wash. 1975) (summary judgment standard and purpose)
- Yakima County v. Yakima Herald-Republic, 170 Wn.2d 775 (Wash. 2011) (agency must identify exemptions and explain their application; inadequate equivocal responses can violate PRA)
- Neighborhood Alliance of Spokane County v. Spokane County, 172 Wn.2d 702 (Wash. 2011) (agency must conduct adequate searches and follow obvious leads for responsive records)
- Fisher Broad.-Seattle TV LLC v. City of Seattle, 180 Wn.2d 515 (Wash. 2014) (adequacy of agency search and obligation to be helpful when denying existence of records)
- Admasu v. Port of Seattle, 185 Wn. App. 23 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014) (moving party cannot obtain full dismissal on grounds not raised in its summary judgment motion)