John Doe G And John Doe H v. Donna Zink, 75519-6

Zink requested records from the Washington DOC under PRA, narrowed to level I sex offender notices for last names A–D.
DOC released identifying information for 4,488 individuals, including names, DOB, SSN, addresses, and crimes.
Two registered sex offenders filed a class action against DOC and Zink, seeking to prevent disclosure and for declaratory relief.
Court granted use of pseudonyms John Doe G and John Doe H with protective order; defined the class of level I offenders A–D.
Court issued a preliminary injunction barring DOC from releasing records pending further order; stayed the case pending Doe v. WSP decision.
After Doe was decided, DOC moved to lift the stay and dismiss; Zink moved to unseal, which the court denied; the case stayed pending Doe outcome was resolved.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the appeal moot after Doe v. Washington State Patrol?	Zink is entitled to records identifying plaintiffs; appeal not moot.	Doe controls; records must be released; mootness applies.	Yes; appeal dismissed as moot.

Doe v. Washington State Patrol, 185 Wn.2d 363 (2016) (reversed trial court; level I offender info not exempt from PRA; mootness discussed)
State v. Deskins, 180 Wn.2d 68 (2014) (jurisdictional mootness considerations; when to dismiss)
Seattle Times Co. v. Ishikawa, 97 Wn.2d 30 (1982) (public disclosure balancing under PRA; pseudonym use)
Mitchell v. Wash. Inst. of Pub. Policy, 153 Wn. App. 803 (2009) (fee-shifting provisions; prevailing party rule)