Lori Shavlik, V. Snohomish County
85174-8
Wash. Ct. App.Nov 25, 2024Background
- Lori Shavlik submitted two Public Records Act (PRA) requests to Snohomish County in 2020 for documents related to former deputy prosecutor (and later Judge) George Appel and Dawson Place, a child advocacy center.
- There were delays and miscommunications regarding access due to COVID-19 restrictions and the county's request for scanning fees.
- Shavlik eventually filed a PRA lawsuit against the county, alleging it improperly withheld records and mishandled her requests.
- Shavlik obtained and served multiple subpoenas on Judge Appel, seeking to depose him and compel document production, arguing he may have relevant information or records.
- The county sought to quash these subpoenas and obtain protective orders, asserting Judge Appel had no involvement in the records search or PRA response.
- The trial court denied the county's motions, allowing a limited deposition of Judge Appel, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding no showing that Appel's testimony was relevant to the PRA claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deposition of Judge Appel is relevant to PRA claims | Judge Appel may have/possess relevant records or knowledge about the subject of the PRA requests | Judge Appel had no role in responding to PRA requests or setting policy, so his testimony is irrelevant | Not relevant; trial court abused discretion in denying motion to quash |
| Adequacy of county's PRA response process | County was withholding, delaying, or mishandling Shavlik's PRA requests | County provided records as available and offered alternatives despite Shavlik declining them | Focus is on county's search/response, not on possible knowledge/records of a former employee |
| Whether procedural limitations on deposition are sufficient | Limits on deposition scope make it acceptable | Deposition not justified absent relevance, so limitations do not cure | Deposition not justified regardless of limitations |
| Right to cross-examine declarant about declaration good faith | Plaintiff entitled to challenge declaration's good faith | Declaration was about need for protection from subpoena, not about adequacy of records search | Not a basis to permit deposition |
Key Cases Cited
- Neigh. All. of Spokane County v. Spokane County, 172 Wn.2d 702 (Wash. 2011) (sets out scope of discovery in PRA actions under civil rules and relevance standard)
- Forbes v. City of Gold Bar, 171 Wn. App. 857 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012) (focus in PRA suits is on adequacy of agency search, not additional undiscovered documents or outside records)
- Kozol v. Wash. State Dep't of Corr., 192 Wn. App. 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015) (review focuses on adequacy of search if records should exist but are not found)
- Hobbs v. State, 183 Wn. App. 925 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014) (lawsuit under PRA only proper after agency takes final action denying access)
- Nissen v. Pierce County, 183 Wn.2d 863 (Wash. 2015) (agency shows search adequacy with good faith, detailed affidavits)