Spokane Research & Defense Fund v. City of Spokane

155 Wash. 2d 89 (2005) · Supreme Court of Washington · August 11, 2005

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court holds that disclosure of public records after litigation does not moot claims for attorney fees, costs, and statutory penalties under Washington's Public Disclosure Act. The court further holds that a requester need not cause the disclosure to obtain prevailing-party status, and that show cause proceedings are discretionary, intervention is permissible, and summary judgment may be used in Public Disclosure Act cases. The court reverses the Court of Appeals and remands for proceedings on the merits.

Holdings

  1. Disclosure of requested records before judgment does not moot a Public Disclosure Act claim when the requester still seeks a determination that the records were wrongfully withheld and statutory fees, costs, or penalties remain available.
  2. Res judicata did not bar Connor's claims because the city waived any objection to litigating a subset of the earlier claims in the later action by failing to oppose intervention or raise the defense while both actions were pending.
  3. A Public Disclosure Act requester need not prove that the lawsuit caused the agency to disclose the records in order to qualify as a prevailing party and seek fees, costs, and statutory penalties.
  4. The PDA's show cause procedure is discretionary rather than mandatory; a requester may pursue a PDA claim through an ordinary civil action.
  5. Intervention is permissible in a PDA action when the intervenor asserts claims concerning the same factual circumstances and seeks the same relief.
  6. Summary judgment is an appropriate procedure for prosecuting Public Disclosure Act claims.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Public Disclosure Act claims were moot after the city disclosed the requested records during related litigation.
  2. Whether res judicata barred the action because Connor's earlier related action had proceeded to judgment.
  3. Whether a requester must cause disclosure of records to qualify as a prevailing party entitled to fees, costs, and statutory penalties under the Public Disclosure Act.
  4. Whether obtaining a statutory show cause order is mandatory to pursue a Public Disclosure Act claim or recover statutory remedies.
  5. Whether intervention is permissible in a Public Disclosure Act action.
  6. Whether summary judgment is an appropriate procedure for prosecuting Public Disclosure Act claims.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (24)

  • Spokane Research & Defense Fund v. City of Spokane, 121 Wn. App. 584, 586, 590-92, 89 P.3d 319 (2004)(reversed)
  • Progressive Animal Welfare Society v. University of Washington, 125 Wn.2d 243, 252, 884 P.2d 592 (1994)(followed)
  • In re Adoption of B.T., 150 Wn.2d 409, 415, 78 P.3d 634 (2003)(followed)
  • King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, 142 Wn.2d 543, 549 n.6, 14 P.3d 133 (2000)(followed)
  • Westerman v. Cary, 125 Wn.2d 277, 286, 892 P.2d 1067 (1994)(followed)
  • Landry v. Luscher, 95 Wn. App. 779, 783-86, 976 P.2d 1274 (1999)(followed)
  • Hayes v. City of Seattle, 131 Wn.2d 706, 711-12, 934 P.2d 1179, 943 P.2d 265 (1997)(followed)
  • Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe, 90 Wn.2d 123, 127, 131, 580 P.2d 246 (1978)(followed)
  • Progressive Animal Welfare Society v. University of Washington, 114 Wn.2d 677, 682, 684, 686-88, 790 P.2d 604 (1990)(followed)
  • Amren v. City of Kalama, 131 Wn.2d 25, 29-30, 35-36, 929 P.2d 389 (1997)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 24.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Washington Supreme Court