Opinion Information Sheet
| Docket Number: | 82397-9 |
| Title of Case: | O'Neill v. City of Shoreline |
| File Date: | 10/07/2010 |
| Oral Argument Date: | 03/16/2010 |
| Appeal from King County Superior Court | |
| 06-2-36983-1 | |
| Honorable Bruce W Hilyer | |
| Barbara A. Madsen | Signed Dissent | |
| Charles W. Johnson | Signed Dissent | |
| Gerry L. Alexander | Dissent Author | |
| Richard B. Sanders | Signed Majority | |
| Tom Chambers | Signed Majority | |
| Susan Owens | Majority Author | |
| Mary E. Fairhurst | Signed Majority | |
| James M. Johnson | Signed Dissent | |
| Debra L. Stephens | Signed Majority |
Counsel for Petitioner(s) | |
| Ramsey E Ramerman | |
| City of Everett | |
| 2930 Wetmore Ave | |
| Everett, WA, 98201-4067 | |
| Flannary Pasieka Collins | |
| City of Shoreline | |
| 17500 Midvale Ave N | |
| Shoreline, WA, 98133-4905 | |
| Ian Richard Sievers | |
| City of Shoreline Attorney | |
| 17500 Midvale Ave N | |
| Shoreline, WA, 98133-4905 | |
Counsel for Respondent(s) | |
| Michele Lynn Earl-Hubbard | |
| Allied Law Group LLC | |
| 2200 6th Ave Ste 770 | |
| Seattle, WA, 98121-1855 | |
| Michael G Brannan | |
| Law Ofc of Michael G Brannan | |
| 555 Dayton St Ste H | |
| Edmonds, WA, 98020-3601 | |
| David M Norman | |
| Attorney at Law | |
| 517 9th Ave. #107 | |
| Seattle, WA, 98104 | |
| Christopher Roslaniec | |
| Allied Law Group LLC | |
| 2200 6th Ave Ste 770 | |
| Seattle, WA, 98121-1855 | |
Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington Association of Munici | |
| Gary T Smith | |
| Seattle City Attorneys Office | |
| Po Box 94769 | |
| Seattle, WA, 98124-4769 | |
| Suzanne Marie Skinner | |
| Attorney at Law | |
| 7601 W Mercer Way | |
| Mercer Island, WA, 98040-5538 | |
| John Benjamin Kerr Schochet | |
| Seattle City Attorney's Office | |
| Po Box 94769 | |
| Seattle, WA, 98124-4769 | |
Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington COAlition for Open Go | |
| William John Crittenden | |
| Attorney at Law | |
| 300 E Pine St | |
| Seattle, WA, 98122-2029 | |
| Patrick Denis Brown | |
| Attorney at Law | |
| 6112 24th Ave Ne | |
| Seattle, WA, 98115-7029 | |
Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington Newspaper Publishers | |
| James Walter Beck | |
| Gordon Thomas Honeywell | |
| Po Box 1157 | |
| Tacoma, WA, 98401-1157 | |
Amicus Curiae on behalf of Allied Daily Newspapers of Washi | |
| James Walter Beck | |
| Gordon Thomas Honeywell | |
| Po Box 1157 | |
| Tacoma, WA, 98401-1157 | |
Amicus Curiae on behalf of State of Washington | |
| Alan D. Copsey | |
| Office of the Attorney General | |
| Po Box 40100 | |
| Olympia, WA, 98504-0100 | |
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DOUG AND BETH O?NEILL, individuals, )
) No. 82397-9
Respondents, )
) En Banc
v. )
)
THE CITY OF SHORELINE, a municipal )
corporation, and DEPUTY MAYOR )
MAGGIE FIMIA, individually and in her )
official capacity, )
) Filed October 7, 2010
Petitioners. )
)
Owens, J. -- This case allows us to consider whether metadata is a public
record that must be disclosed under the Public Records Act (PRA), chapter 42.56
RCW. This is a matter of first impression before this court. We affirm the Court of
Appeals and hold that metadata associated with public records is subject to disclosure
under the PRA.
O?Neill v. City of Shoreline
No. 82397-9
FACTS
On September 14, 2006, Diane Hettrick (a private citizen) wrote an e-mail to
Lisa Thwing (also a private citizen) and possibly others. The relevant portion of the e-
mail stated:
Hi folks,
My dear friend, Beth O?Neill has asked me to pass along information
about our dysfunctional Shoreline City Council. Beth and some other
folks have been working hard battling certain issues regarding an illegal
rental in their neighborhood. What should be a legal and zoning issue
has gotten mired into the politics of our 32nd District Democrats and
certain City Council folks are playing favorites with their own political
supporters.
Ex. J at 21.
On September 18, Thwing forwarded this e-mail to Shoreline Deputy Mayor
Maggie Fimia, City Councilmember Janet Way, and others. The e-mail that Fimia
received did not list any other recipients that Thwing had sent it to, as Thwing had first
forwarded the e-mail to herself and blind carbon copied all other recipients. As a
result, only Thwing?s name and e-mail address showed up as recipients on the e-mail
header that Fimia received.
At a public meeting of the Shoreline City Council (Council) on September 18,
Fimia stated that she had been sent a copy of an e-mail allegedly sent by ?a Ms.
Hettrick and a Ms. O?Neill? accusing the Council of improper conduct. Clerk?s Papers
2
O?Neill v. City of Shoreline
82397-9
(CP) at 20. Ms. O?Neill immediately made an oral request for that e-mail and denied
authoring it. Fimia stated that she ?would be happy to share the e-mail with Ms.
O?Neill.? Id. When she returned home from the council meeting, Fimia forwarded the
original Thwing e-mail to Fimia?s personal e-mail account. In forwarding the e-mail,
Fimia removed the ?to? and ?from? line listing Thwing as the sender and recipient, but
she did not remove any additional information from the e-mail. Fimia claimed that she
did this ?in order to protect Ms. Thwing from potential public exposure.? CP at 21.
On September 19, Fimia forwarded this new e-mail to staff at the city of Shoreline
(City), which provided it in print to Ms. O?Neill. This e-mail did not include the
sender or recipient information of the e-mail from Hettrick to Thwing, nor did it
include the sender or recipient information of the e-mail from Thwing to Fimia. Ms.
O?Neill then asked in writing for the City to provide all information relating to the e-
mail, including how it was received by Fimia, from whom it was received, and the
forwarding chain of the e-mail. Fimia found the original unaltered September 18 e-
mail from Thwing to Fimia, including the forwarding information that the e-mail had
originally been sent by Hettrick on September 14, and forwarded it to the city attorney.
On September 25, the City gave the O?Neills a hard copy of that unaltered complete e-
mail string, including both headers, each of which included the date and time of the
message.
3
O?Neill v. City of Shoreline
82397-9
After receiving the second disclosure on September 25, Ms. O?Neill explicitly
requested the metadata from the e-mail?s entire chain, including ?[all] metadata
pertaining to? the e-mail that Thwing had sent Fimia. Ex. G. Metadata is most clearly
defined as ?data about data? or hidden information about electronic documents created
by software programs. Jembaa Cole, When Invisible Electronic Ink Leaves Red
Faces: Tactical, Legal and Ethical Consequences of the Failure to Remove Metadata,
1 Shidler J. L. Com. & Tech. ¶ 7 (Feb. 2, 2005), available at
http://www.lctjournal.washington.edu/Vol1/a008Cole.html. Fimia attempted to find
the metadata associated with the original e-mail from Thwing, but could not find it;
Fimia concluded that she must have inadvertently destroyed it. Fimia asked Thwing to
again resend the original e-mail to her, which Thwing did on September 29. Fimia
provided this e-mail, along with the e-mail?s metadata, to city staff for distribution to
Ms. O?Neill. The City then provided another installation of records to Ms. O?Neill on
October 3, including a paper copy of the e-mail that Thwing resent to Fimia on
September 29 and metadata from that e-mail. The City also provided Ms. O?Neill with
metadata from the identical September 18 e-mail that Thwing had sent to City
Councilmember Janet Way, after extracting it from Way?s computer. Ms. O?Neill
nevertheless continued to seek all metadata associated with the e-mail string. Since
Fimia had destroyed the original September 18 e-mail, the City was unable to provide
4
O?Neill v. City of Shoreline
82397-9
Ms. O?Neill with the metadata associated with the e-mail that Thwing sent to Fimia on
September 18. Ms. O?Neill brought suit under the PRA. The trial court reviewed the
motions and affidavits, dismissed the action, and awarded costs to the City and deputy
mayor.
Ms. O?Neill and her husband Doug O?Neill appealed, and the Court of Appeals
found that metadata must be disclosed under the PRA. The Court of Appeals ruled
that metadata from Thwing?s original e-mail to Fimia was a public record and that the
O?Neills are entitled to it. O?Neill v. City of Shoreline, 145 Wn. App. 913, 935, 187
P.3d 822 (2008). It stated that the City never provided the O?Neills with the exact
requested public record. Id. In particular, the Court of Appeals stated that the name, e-
mail address, and Internet protocol address on the metadata that the O?Neills received,
among other things, might be different. Id. Since the Court of Appeals thought that
the header information on the two e-mails might be different, it ruled that the O?Neills
were entitled to the metadata from Thwing?s original e-mail to Fimia. Id. It then
remanded for the trial court to determine whether Fimia?s hard drive contained
metadata associated with the September 18 e-mail, whether the City had violated the
PRA by not releasing covered public records, and if so, the appropriate monetary
penalty under the PRA. Id. at 936. The Court of Appeals also awarded attorney fees
to the O?Neills and decided that a public records request can be decided based on
5
O?Neill v. City of Shoreline
82397-9
affidavits alone. Id. at 938-40. The City and Deputy Mayor Fimia petitioned for
review, which we granted. O?Neill v. City of Shoreline, 208 P.3d 554 (2009).
ISSUES
1. Is e-mail metadata a public record that must be disclosed under the PRA?
2. Does a request to see an e-mail inherently include a request to see metadata?
3. Did the Court of Appeals err by granting attorney fees?
4. Can a public records request be decided on affidavits alone?
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review challenges to agency actions under the PRA de novo. City of
Federal Way v. Koenig, 167 Wn.2d 341, 344, 217 P.3d 1172 (2009) (citing Soter v.
Cowles Publ?g Co., 162 Wn.2d 716, 731, 174 P.3d 60 (2007)).
ANALYSIS
I. Metadata is Subject to the PRA
The Court of Appeals ruled that metadata from Thwing?s original September 18
e-mail to Fimia was a public record and that the O?Neills are entitled to it. O?Neill,
145 Wn. App. at 935. Metadata, while not defined in standard English dictionaries,
has been defined in various other sources. ?Metadata is quite simply data about data,
or hidden statistical information about a document that is generated by a software
program.? Cole, supra, at ¶ 7 (footnote omitted). ??Metadata? is ?information
6
O?Neill v. City of Shoreline
82397-9
describing the history, tracking, or management of an electronic document.?? Lake v.
City of Phoenix, 222 Ariz. 547, 548 n.1, 218 P.3d 1004 (2009) (quoting Williams v.
Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 230 F.R.D. 640, 646 (D. Kan. 2005)). Examples of e-mail
metadata ?include, among about 1,200 or more properties, such information as the
dates that mail was sent, received, replied to or forwarded, blind carbon copy . . .
information, and sender address book information.? Working Group on Elec. Doc.
Retention & Prod., The Sedona Conference, The Sedona Principles: Best Practices
Recommendations And Principles For Addressing Electronic Document Production 3
(2d ed. June 2007), available at http://www.
thesedonaconference.org/content/miscFiles/publications_html?grp=wgs110. Metadata
from electronic files can include ??information about a particular data set which
describes how, when and by whom it was collected, created, accessed, or modified and
how it is formatted (including data demographics such as size, location, storage
requirements and media information).?? Williams, 230 F.R.D. at 646 (quoting
Working Group on Best Practices for Elec. Doc. Retention & Prod., The Sedona
Conference, The Sedona Guidelines: Best Practice Guidelines & Commentary for
Managing Information And Records in the Electronic Age App. F at 94 (Sept. 2005),
available at http://www.thesedonaconference.org/
content/miscFiles/publications_html?grp=wgs110). ?Most metadata is generally not
7
O?Neill v. City of Shoreline
82397-9
visible when a document is printed or when the document is converted to an image
file.? Id. We must decide here whether metadata needs to be disclosed under the
PRA.
?The public disclosure act, formerly chapter 42.17 RCW, was enacted in 1972
by initiative.? Soter, 162 Wn.2d at 730 (citing Dawson v. Daly, 120 Wn.2d 782, 788,
845 P.2d 995 (1993)). ?The portion dealing with public records has since been
recodified at chapter 42.56 RCW and renamed the [PRA].? Id. The PRA requires that
?[e]ach agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public
inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific
exemptions of . . . this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure
of specific information or records.? RCW 42.56.070(1). The PRA should be liberally
construed and its exemptions should be narrowly construed in favor of disclosure.
Former RCW 42.56.030 (2005).
We must decide whether the metadata associated with Thwing?s original e-mail
to Fimia is a ?public record? subject to disclosure under the PRA. The PRA applies
only to public records. RCW 42.56.070(1). ??Public record? includes any writing
containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of
any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any
state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics.? Former RCW
8
O?Neill v. City of Shoreline
82397-9
42.56.010 (2005) (codified as former RCW 42.17.020(41) (2005)).1 In sum, ?public
record? is defined very broadly, encompassing virtually any record related to the
conduct of government.
This is an issue of first impression that has been examined previously by only
one court. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that ?metadata in an electronic
document is part of the underlying document [and] does not stand on its own.? Lake,
222 Ariz. at 550. It therefore held that ?when a public entity maintains a public
record in an electronic format, the electronic version of the record, including any
embedded metadata, is subject to disclosure under [Arizona?s] public records law.?
Id. at 551. Whereas no statute defined ?public records? in Arizona, a very broad
statute defining public records as nearly any conceivable government record related to
the conduct of government is liberally construed in Washington. See former RCW
42.56.010 (codified as former RCW 42.17.020(41) (2005)), .030. Metadata may
contain information that relates to the conduct of government and is important for the
public to know. It could conceivably include information about whether a document
1 ??Writing?? is defined as: ?handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating,
photographing, and every other means of recording any form of communication or
representation including, but not limited to, letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols,
or combination thereof, and all papers, maps, magnetic or paper tapes, photographic films
and prints, motion picture, film and video recordings, magnetic or punched cards, discs,
drums, diskettes, sound recordings, and other documents including existing data
compilations from which information may be obtained or translated.? Former RCW
42.56.010 (codified as former RCW 42.17.020(48) (2005)).
9
O?Neill v. City of Shoreline
82397-9
was altered, what time a document was created, or who sent a document to whom.
Our broad PRA exists to ensure that the public maintains control over their
government, and we will not deny our citizenry access to a whole class of possibly
important government information. We agree with the Supreme Court of Arizona that
an electronic version of a record, including its embedded metadata, is a public record
subject to disclosure. There is no doubt here that the relevant e-mail itself is a public
record, so its embedded metadata is also a public record and must be disclosed. We
therefore affirm the Court of Appeals ruling that the metadata associated with
Thwing?s original e-mail to Fimia is subject to the PRA and must be disclosed.
As the Court of Appeals noted, the City admits that it has not provided the
O?Neills with the metadata from Thwing?s original e-mail to Fimia. O?Neill, 145 Wn.
App. at 934. It is impossible to know at this point what information is contained
within the metadata associated with that original e-mail. It is impossible to know this
information because Fimia admittedly deleted the original e-mail from her computer,
along with all of its associated metadata. Since we cannot see the metadata associated
with Thwing?s original e-mail to Fimia, we cannot see how it may be different from
the metadata that the O?Neills have already received. It is important to note that the
O?Neills have received only copies of metadata that are associated with other e-mails.
They have never received a copy of the metadata from Thwing?s original e-mail to
10
O?Neill v. City of Shoreline
82397-9
Fimia on September 18. This is the metadata they had specifically requested on
September 25, and this is the metadata that they have never received. We agree with
the Court of Appeals that ?the City has not yet proved that it provided to O'Neill
access to the metadata she requested. She is entitled to this public record.? Id. at 935.
a. The State Records Management Guidelines (Guidelines)2 Do Not Justify the
City?s Actions
The petitioners ask us to consider the Guidelines as evidence that metadata need
not be released under the PRA. They argue that the Guidelines authorize government
agencies to delete certain records once they have been printed. This argument is
unpersuasive. While the PRA implies that there are circumstances when public
records can be scheduled for destruction, the PRA does not allow agencies to destroy
records that are subject to a pending records request. It states that agencies ?shall
retain possession of the record, and may not destroy or erase the record until the
request is resolved.? RCW 42.56.100. Here, the electronic version of the e-mail,
including its embedded metadata, is a public record, so it could not be destroyed once
Ms. O?Neill made a request for it.
The ?Frequently Asked Questions About E-Mail Retention? section of the
Guidelines states that employees can print messages and then delete them, ?provided
2 Office of the Secretary of State, Div. of Archives & Records Mgmt., Local Government
Agencies of Washington State, Records Management Guidelines (June 2001). CP at 59-
138.
11
O?Neill v. City of Shoreline
82397-9
[that] you print the following information with the message: name of sender, name of
recipient, date and time of transmission and/or receipt. You then file the printed
message with the appropriate records series and retain it according to the retention
approved for that series by the Local Records Committee.? CP at 92. These
guidelines are generic references to the retention of e-mails; however, they certainly
do not authorize state agencies to delete e-mails that are already subject to a pending
records request, which would directly violate RCW 42.56.100. Furthermore, Fimia
herself declared that she must have ?inadvertently deleted? the e-mail with its
associated metadata, CP at 22, so she can hardly claim that she consciously deleted it
in accordance with the Guidelines.
Most importantly, the courts are charged with carrying out the PRA. We are
here to declare the law and effect of the statute; we need provide no deference to an
agency?s interpretation of the PRA. Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe, 90 Wn.2d 123, 130, 580
P.2d 246 (1978). Furthermore, when there is the possibility of a conflict between the
PRA and other acts, the PRA governs. Former RCW 42.56.030; Progressive Animal
Welfare Soc?y v. Univ. of Wash., 125 Wn.2d 243, 262, 884 P.2d 592 (1994). Even
assuming arguendo that the Guidelines could be interpreted to allow for the
destruction of e-mails, the broad, liberally construed PRA governs. For this reason,
we hold that the Guidelines do not justify the deletion of e-mails that are subject to a
12
O?Neill v. City of Shoreline
82397-9
pending PRA request. When a PRA request is made, a government agency must hold
onto those records, including their metadata; they cannot be deleted.3
b. The City Has the Opportunity to Inspect Fimia?s Hard Drive for the
Requested Metadata
Next, we give the City the opportunity to inspect Fimia?s home computer?s hard
drive for the requested metadata. While the City has searched Fimia?s e-mail folder
for the deleted e-mail and its associated metadata, the City has not inspected the hard
drive of Fimia?s home computer. The City has a duty to provide records to the public
that are subject to the PRA. RCW 42.56.070(1). Information that must be disclosed
under the PRA conceivably exists on the hard drive of Fimia?s computer. If it is
possible for the City to retrieve this information, the PRA requires that it be found and
released to the O?Neills. We will not yet say unequivocally that the City violated the
PRA. The City still has the opportunity to search for the requested metadata on
Fimia?s home computer?s hard drive. We note that this inspection is appropriate only
because Fimia used her personal computer for city business.4 If government
employees could circumvent the PRA by using their home computers for government
3 Recent regulations that went into effect January 1, 2010, have clarified the law and now
require agencies to maintain stored copies of e-mails, including associated metadata.
WAC 434-662-150. In future cases, it will be even clearer that the Guidelines do not
authorize the deletion of such metadata.
4 We address only whether the City may inspect Fimia?s home computer if she gives
consent to the inspection. We do not address whether the City may inspect Fimia?s home
computer absent her consent.
13
O?Neill v. City of Shoreline
82397-9
business, the PRA could be drastically undermined. We remand the case for the trial
court to give the City the chance to search for the requested metadata, and to
determine whether the City has violated the PRA.
In sum, we affirm the Court of Appeals ruling that remanded the case to the
trial court. If, on remand, the City refuses to inspect Fimia?s home computer?s hard
drive for the metadata, the trial court should find that the City violated the PRA, as the
City will not have provided the O?Neills with the requested metadata. If the City
inspects Fimia?s home computer?s hard drive, however, the trial court will be better
able to determine what the requested metadata looks like. If the requested metadata is
discovered during this inspection, the City is required to provide it to the O?Neills. Of
course, the O?Neills were provided with two other copies of metadata: one from
Thwing?s e-mail to Way, and one from when Thwing resent her e-mail to Fimia on
September 29. If the trial court determines that the metadata already provided to the
O?Neills is identical to the metadata that the O?Neills actually asked for, the already
released metadata may be sufficient. If the metadata from the September 18 e-mail
cannot be found on Fimia?s computer or if the metadata on the September 18 e-mail is
not identical to the already released metadata, the trial court must determine,
consistent with this court?s opinion, whether the City's deletion of the metadata
violated the PRA. If appropriate, the trial court should determine the monetary
14
O?Neill v. City of Shoreline
82397-9
penalty under the PRA.
15
O?Neill v. City of Shoreline
82397-9
II. O?Neill?s Oral Request at the Council Meeting Was Not a Request for Metadata
While we agree that metadata is included within the PRA?s definition of a
public record, this does not necessarily mean that a government agency must provide
metadata every time a request for a public record is made. At the council meeting,
O?Neill made an oral request to see the e-mail. The City responded at first by
providing a paper copy of the e-mail, without metadata attached. The Court of
Appeals ruled that ?[t]he PRA only requires providing a public record when it is
identifiable,? and that the oral request at the Council meeting made no mention of the
electronic version of the e-mail or of the associated metadata. O?Neill, 145 Wn. App.
at 932-33. We affirm the Court of Appeals and hold that the wording of the oral
request did not clearly include metadata. Metadata is a new topic that has never
before been dealt with in PRA litigation, and we conclude that a request for the
metadata was not made until Ms. O?Neill specifically asked for it.
III.The Court of Appeals Erred by Granting Attorney Fees
The Court of Appeals awarded attorney fees to the O?Neills because they had
?partially prevailed.? Id. at 940. Washington law provides that ?[a]ny person who
prevails against an agency in any action in the courts seeking the right to inspect or
copy any public record or the right to receive a response to a public record request
within a reasonable amount of time shall be awarded all costs, including reasonable
16
O?Neill v. City of Shoreline
82397-9
attorney fees, incurred in connection with such legal action.? RCW 42.56.550(4). We
have previously held that attorney fees should be granted only when documents are
disclosed to a prevailing party, and where further fact finding is necessary to
determine whether the PRA was violated, the question of attorney fees should be
remanded to the trial court. Concerned Ratepayers Ass?n v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 138
Wn.2d 950, 964, 983 P.2d 635 (1999). Here, the Court of Appeals did not find that
the City violated the PRA. It merely stated that metadata is subject to the PRA and
remanded for the trial court to determine whether the PRA was violated. O?Neill, 145
Wn. App. at 936. We also do not say whether the PRA was violated but remand the
case to the trial court for that determination. The Court of Appeals therefore erred
when it said that ?[a]n award is proper because she has partially prevailed.? Id. at 940.
The trial court should award attorney fees only if it finds a violation of the PRA.
IV.A Public Records Case Can Be Decided On Affidavits Alone
The O?Neills argue that the Court of Appeals erred when it upheld the trial
court?s ruling that a PRA cause of action can be decided based on affidavits alone.
The O?Neills claim that this ruling violated the PRA and due process. The PRA
provides that
[u]pon the motion of any person having been denied an opportunity to
inspect or copy a public record by an agency, the superior court in the
county in which a record is maintained may require the responsible
agency to show cause why it has refused to allow inspection or copying
of a specific public record or class of records. The burden of proof shall
17
O?Neill v. City of Shoreline
82397-9
be on the agency to establish that refusal to permit public inspection and
copying is in accordance with a statute that exempts or prohibits
disclosure in whole or in part of specific information or records.
RCW 42.56.550(1).
It also specifically states that ?[t]he court may conduct a hearing based
solely on affidavits.? RCW 42.56.550(3). Relevant WAC provisions discussing
RCW 42.56.550 provide:
The act provides a speedy remedy for a requestor to obtain a court
hearing on whether the agency has violated [RCW 42.56.550]. . . . The
purpose of the quick judicial procedure is to allow requestors to
expeditiously find out if they are entitled to obtain public records. To
speed up the court process, a public records case may be decided merely
on the ?motion? of a requestor and ?solely on affidavits.?
WAC 44-14-08004(1) (footnote omitted).
We have also stated that ?the statute contemplates judicial review upon motion
and affidavit. Were we to interfere with trial courts? litigation management decisions,
we would make public disclosure act cases so expensive that citizens could not use the
act for its intended purpose.? Brouillet v. Cowles Publ?g Co., 114 Wn.2d 788, 801,
791 P.2d 526 (1990) (citation omitted).
The O?Neills specifically checked the box for a hearing without oral argument
on their motion to show cause, even though they had the opportunity to ask for oral
argument. At the hearing, the trial court reviewed the motions and affidavits and
determined that ?all . . . responsive records that exist have been provided to the
18
O?Neill v. City of Shoreline
82397-9
plaintiffs.? CP at 141. It therefore dismissed the O?Neills? PRA action. The trial
court followed the procedure set out in RCW 42.56.550, deciding a motion based
solely on affidavits. The statute was not violated. The O?Neills also cite no applicable
authority that would suggest such a procedure violates due process. We hold that due
process was satisfied.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Court of Appeals and hold that the City may not have provided
all public records to the O?Neills in accordance with the PRA. On remand, the trial
court must give the City the opportunity to inspect Fimia?s home computer?s hard
drive to consider whether all public records were properly disclosed. If the City
refuses to inspect Fimia?s home computer?s hard drive, they have indisputably not
provided all public records to the O?Neills, and the trial court should find that the City
violated the PRA. Furthermore, if the City inspects Fimia?s home computer?s hard
drive but cannot find the metadata associated with the September 18 e-mail, or finds
metadata from the September 18 e-mail that is different from the metadata already
released to the O?Neills, the trial court must determine, consistent with this court?s
opinion, whether the City's deletion of the metadata violated the PRA. If appropriate,
the trial court should determine the monetary penalty under the PRA. We also affirm
the Court of Appeals and hold that O?Neill?s original request to see the e-mail did not
19
O?Neill v. City of Shoreline
82397-9
inherently include a request to see metadata and that a public records case can be
decided based on affidavits alone. We reverse in part, however, and direct the trial
court not to grant attorney fees until an actual violation of the PRA is found.
AUTHOR:
Justice Susan Owens
WE CONCUR:
Justice Mary E. Fairhurst
Justice Richard B. Sanders Justice Debra L. Stephens
Justice Tom Chambers
20