Hangartner v. City of Seattle

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court consolidated two public disclosure act cases involving requests for agency records. It held that a request for all of an agency’s documents was impermissibly overbroad, that public debate alone did not establish a controversy sufficient for the statutory controversy exemption, and that records protected by the attorney-client privilege are exempt from disclosure under the public disclosure act. The court remanded the Hangartner matter for determination of whether the withheld documents were privileged.

Holdings

1. A valid Public Disclosure Act request must identify the desired documents with reasonable clarity; a requester cannot satisfy that requirement by simply requesting all of an agency's documents. An agency need not comply with an overbroad request.
2. Public debate or a litigation-charged atmosphere, without a threat or reasonable anticipation of litigation concerning the project, does not constitute a controversy under RCW 42.17.310(1)(j). The light-rail documents were therefore not exempt under the controversy exemption.
3. Records protected by the statutory attorney-client privilege under RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) are exempt from disclosure under the Public Disclosure Act's other-statute provision, regardless of whether the records are relevant to a controversy under RCW 42.17.310(1)(j). The trial court erred by ordering disclosure without determining whether the withheld documents were privileged.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a Public Disclosure Act request for all books, records, and documents of an agency is impermissibly overbroad and invalid.
2. Whether public debate or a litigation-charged atmosphere surrounding a transportation project constitutes a controversy under RCW 42.17.310(1)(j).
3. Whether records protected by the statutory attorney-client privilege in RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) are exempt from disclosure under the Public Disclosure Act's other-statute provision.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded