452 P.3d 1241
Wash. Ct. App.2019Background
- Dawson Place is a private nonprofit child advocacy center in Everett that leases space to public and private service providers, coordinates multidisciplinary team (MDT) meetings, and employs two forensic child interview specialists under contract with Snohomish County.
- In early 2017 Lori Shavlik and Arthur West requested records under Washington’s Public Records Act (PRA); Dawson Place refused, asserting it is not a public agency or its functional equivalent.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Dawson Place, concluding it is not subject to the PRA, and struck portions of West’s evidence for failing to comply with local rules and authentication requirements; West’s CR 56(f) continuance request was denied.
- Key factual findings supporting the court’s ruling: interview specialists do not control investigations or charging decisions (those remain with law enforcement and the prosecutor); Dawson Place’s routine government funding is primarily fee-for-service reimbursements and, since ~2013, under 50% of revenue; the board is majority private and Dawson Place was privately incorporated.
- Statutes (RCW 26.44.180/.185) require counties to develop protocols and consider child advocacy centers where available but do not compel creation of centers or place centers under day-to-day government control.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment, upheld the evidentiary rulings, applied the invited-error principle to West’s continuance challenge, and denied Dawson Place’s request for appellate sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dawson Place is the "functional equivalent" of a public agency under the PRA | West: Dawson Place performs governmental functions (forensic interviews/MDT coordination), receives government funding, is governed/created by government action, so PRA applies | Dawson Place: functions are nonessential/therapeutic, funding is fee-for-service and below 50% in recent years, no day-to-day government control, privately created | Held: Not the functional equivalent; Telford factors (function, funding, control, origin) weighed against PRA coverage |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in denying West’s CR 56(f) motion to continue | West: needed time to transcribe deposition and pursue further discovery; requested continuance | Dawson Place: court appropriately managed schedule; West effectively accepted the court’s alternative handling | Held: Denial not reviewed on merits because invited-error doctrine bars West’s challenge (he proposed the court’s handling) |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in striking West’s deposition transcript and other evidentiary submissions | West: deposition and tables were properly submitted and material to summary judgment | Dawson Place: submissions violated local rule requiring verbatim excerpts and lacked authentication; thus inadmissible | Held: No abuse of discretion; exclusion was proper for noncompliance with local rules and CR 56(e)/authentication requirements |
| Whether appellate sanctions under RAP 18.9 were warranted against West | Dawson Place: West’s briefs lack citations and contain errors, meriting sanctions | West: briefs inadequate but not sanctionable | Held: Denied; briefs flawed but not so deficient as to warrant sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Fortgang v. Woodland Park Zoo, 187 Wn.2d 509 (Wash. 2017) (adopts Telford factors as the proper PRA functional-equivalency framework)
- Telford v. Thurston County Bd. of Comm'rs, 95 Wn. App. 149 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999) (origin of the functional-equivalency test used to identify private entities acting as government)
- Clarke v. Tri-Cities Animal Care & Control Shelter, 144 Wn. App. 185 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008) (application of Telford factors where an animal shelter assumed certain governmental enforcement powers)
- Domestic Violence Servs. of Greater New Haven, Inc. v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 47 Conn. App. 466 (Conn. App. Ct. 1998) (analogous application of functional-equivalency factors; nonprofit not a public agency despite government-funded contracts)