The Washington Supreme Court has long endorsed a liberal construction of the Washington Public Records Act (PRA), calling it a “strongly-worded mandate for broad disclosure of public records.” Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe, 90 Wn.2d 123, 127, 580 P.2d 246, 249 (1978). In recent years, the Court has gravitated toward an even broader interpretation of the PRA’s disclosure mandate. As a result, agencies are increasingly at risk of being held liable for minor or technical violations of the statute. This trend was on display in the Court’s recent decision in City of Lakewood v. Koenig, --- P.3d ---, 2014 WL 7003790 (Dec. 11, 2014), in which an agency was penalized for failing to provide a sufficiently detailed explanation of why it redacted personally identifying information from public records.
The plaintiff in Koenig requested public records pertaining to three unrelated law enforcement investigations maintained by the City of Lakewood (City). The City produced the records to the plaintiff with driver's license numbers and other personally identifying information redacted. In an accompanying exemption log, the City cited four statutory exemptions “pursuant” to which personally identifying information had been withheld.
Upon receiving the exemption log, the plaintiff asked the City to clarify, among other issues, how the cited exemptions authorized withholding of driver’s license numbers. The City refused, stating: “Given what should be the self-evident nature of redacting an individual’s driver’s license number, we decline your invitation to provide further unnecessary explanation.” The City then filed a declaratory action asking the court to resolve the controversy. The court awarded summary judgment to the City.
The Washington Supreme Court accepted review to decide whether the City complied with a provision of the PRA that requires agencies to note the “specific exemption authorizing the withholding” of a public record and to give a “brief explanation of how the exemption applies to the record withheld.” RCW 42.56.210(3). In an 8–1 decision, the Court held the City’s response fell short of this “brief explanation” requirement because it did not provide enough information for the plaintiff or a reviewing court to “determine whether the exemptions were properly invoked.” Citing to its prior holding in Rental Housing Association of Puget Sound v. City of Des Moines, 165 Wn.2d 525, 199 P.3d 393 (2009), the Court emphasized that agencies bear the burden of proving that records have been appropriately withheld—and that the plain language of the statute calls for exemptions to be established “with particularity.” In view of this particularity requirement, the Court explained, an agency cannot carry its burden with a simple citation unless it is “clear on the face” of a record that any withheld information is “categorically exempt” from disclosure. In all other situations, an agency’s “brief explanation” must be more specific.
The take-home message from Koenig is clear: agencies must “show their work” when claiming exemptions under the PRA. Unless the text of a statute “categorically” applies to a particular type of information—presumably a rare circumstance—agencies should support any claimed exemptions with a brief explanation that is sufficiently particular to allow for meaningful judicial review.
