Joseph L. Jones v. Washington State Department of Corrections
33920-3
| Wash. Ct. App. | Aug 18, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Joseph Jones, an inmate, signed a Classification Hearing Notice/Appearance Waiver on November 3, 2014 and requested a copy the same day; he mailed a formal public records request to the Department of Corrections (DOC) Public Disclosure Unit on November 3, received by DOC on November 7.
- DOC staff followed internal routing for the form, but the signed form could not be located after the public records request; DOC conducted searches and ultimately informed Jones on December 12 that no responsive record was in its possession.
- Neither party produced evidence establishing the date the form was lost; the parties agreed DOC lost the form but disagreed about whether the loss occurred before or after DOC received the records request.
- Jones sued under the Washington Public Records Act (PRA), alleging DOC violated the PRA by failing to produce the form; the trial court held DOC did not violate the PRA because there was inadequate evidence the form was lost after DOC received the request.
- On appeal Jones argued the court should (1) apply a rebuttable presumption the loss occurred after the request, (2) apply res ipsa loquitur because DOC had exclusive control, and (3) impose a special evidentiary burden (drawing on U.S. Oil) because DOC had sole access to the evidence; the court rejected each argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a lost record triggers a presumption that loss occurred after agency received PRA request | Jones: adopt a rebuttable presumption that agencies lost/destroyed records after request, shifting burden to agency | DOC: no such presumption; requester must prove violation and agency not presumptively at fault | Court: no presumption; requester bears burden and agency need not prove when loss occurred |
| Whether res ipsa loquitur applies to infer agency fault for lost public records | Jones: doctrine should apply because DOC had exclusive control of the form | DOC: doctrine inappropriate; PRA claims are not negligence-based | Court: res ipsa loquitur inapplicable; issue is timing of loss, not negligence |
| Whether special evidentiary allocation (like U.S. Oil) requires agency to show loss before receipt of request | Jones: apply special rule because agency has sole access to loss evidence | DOC: U.S. Oil not applicable; PRA context differs | Court: U.S. Oil does not govern PRA burden allocation here; rejected special rule |
| Whether DOC violated PRA by failing to produce record when record cannot be located despite alleged adequate search | Jones: loss after request would violate RCW 42.56.100; DOC should be liable absent proof loss predated request | DOC: agencies are not liable where records did not exist at time of request and there is no evidence of destruction after request; adequate search presumed here | Court: DOC did not violate PRA; inadequate evidence that loss occurred after request; adequate search assumed and inadvertent loss not penalized |
Key Cases Cited
- West v. Dep't of Natural Resources, 163 Wn. App. 235 (agency not liable where record was inadvertently lost before request)
- Building Indus. Ass'n of Wash. v. McCarthy, 152 Wn. App. 720 (requester must present competent evidence; absence of record can be explained by loss predating request)
- U.S. Oil & Refining Co. v. Dep't of Ecology, 96 Wn.2d 85 (discusses special evidentiary concerns and discovery rule in environmental enforcement; not extended to PRA burden allocation)
- O'Neill v. City of Shoreline, 170 Wn.2d 138 (agencies may not destroy records subject to pending PRA requests)