IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION THREE

JANE DOE #1, a single woman, JANE 

DOES #2-9,

Respondents,

v.

WASHINGTON STATE COMMUNITY 

COLLEGE DISTRICT 17, 

COMMUNITY COLLEGES OF 

SPOKANE; an agency of the STATE OF 

WASHINGTON,

Respondents,

COWLES COMPANY, a Washington 

Corporation,

Appellant,

SPOKANE TELEVISION, INC., a 

Washington Corporation; and INLAND 

PUBLICATIONS, INC., a Washington 

Corporation,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 36030-0-III

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

FEARING, J. — Based on the Public Records Act’s broad mandate of liberal 

disclosure of government agency records, we reverse the superior court’s decision 

FILED

JUNE 18, 2019

In the Office of the Clerk of Court

WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
No. 36030-0-III

Jane Doe #1 v. Wash. State Comm. College

2

ordering the redaction of names and other identifying information of victims and 

witnesses found in investigative records held by the Spokane Falls Community College 

following the resignation of the college’s acting president surrounding allegations of 

sexual misconduct. We hold that RCW 42.56.230(3), a subsection of the Public Records 

Act, does not shield the identifiers from release since no evidence shows that the type of 

records were such that the community college would hold the records in files maintained 

for the benefit of employees. 

FACTS

Appellant Cowles Publishing Company publishes the Spokesman-Review. 

Respondent Washington State Community College District 17, a community college 

district organized under RCW 28B.50.040, operates two colleges: Spokane Community 

College and Spokane Falls Community College. WAC 132Q-276-040. Respondents 

Jane Does #1 through 10 are the targets of the subject Public Records Act request sent by 

the Spokesman-Review to Spokane Falls Community College. The Spokesman-Review

submitted its request as a result of alleged sexual misconduct of Spokane Falls 

Community College acting president Darren Pitcher, who served in this position in 2017 

and 2018. 

Jane Doe #1 filed an anonymous complaint about Darren Pitcher with Spokane 

Falls Community College’s human resources office in 2016, so we assume Pitcher served 

in another position with the community college at an earlier date. When the office 
No. 36030-0-III

Jane Doe #1 v. Wash. State Comm. College

3

withheld action in response, Jane Doe #1 broadened her audience and filed an anonymous 

complaint with community college officials, her faculty union, and the State Board of 

Community and Technical Colleges. The American Association of Higher Education 

president then explained to Doe #1 that the district maintained a policy not to investigate 

anonymous complaints and that she would need to file a formal complaint if she wanted 

the allegations investigated. We do not know why the American Association of Higher 

Education gave advice about the community college’s policies. 

On January 16, 2018, Jane Doe #1 filed a second complaint of sexual harassment 

and retaliation against Darren Pitcher with Spokane Falls Community College’s human 

resources office. Doe #1 identified herself in this second complaint. The complaint 

detailed Pitcher’s purported inappropriate behavior and the effect of the behavior on Doe 

#1. The human resources office interviewed Jane Doe #1. Doe #1 recounted Pitcher 

exposing his genitals to her, grooming her for a quid pro quo sexual encounter, and 

engaging in sexual intercourse with her. Doe #1 further informed the human resources 

office that Pitcher engaged in or attempted to engage in sexual relationships with other

subordinates, who either gained promotion or were fired or demoted when rebuffing 

sexual advances. 

Spokane Falls Community College investigated Jane Doe #1’s allegations, and the 

investigation included interviews of Jane Does #2-9. Jane Doe #9 reported that Darren 

Pitcher sent instant messenger messages to her of a sexual nature. The messages 
No. 36030-0-III

Jane Doe #1 v. Wash. State Comm. College

4

described and commented on Doe #9’s genital and breasts. Jane Does #2-8 and 10 did 

not assert that Pitcher subjected them to harassment or misconduct, but the eight women 

disclosed knowledge of misbehavior toward others. 

On February 26, 2018, Darren Pitcher resigned as acting president. The 

Spokesman-Review then made the following public record request to Spokane Falls 

Community College:

Please provide all records and correspondence related to claims of 

misconduct, including claims of sexual harassment, involving Darren 

Pitcher, from before and during his time as acting president of Spokane 

Falls Community College.

Please also provide all records and correspondence related to 

Community Colleges of Spokane’s investigation into such allegations. 

Correspondence should include emails to and from Chancellor Christine 

Johnson regarding this matter.

Please also provide copies of all text messages that Pitcher 

exchanged with Kari Collen. These text messages are subject to public 

disclosure if Pitcher used a CCS-owned cell phone or received a stipend for 

work-related cell phone use.

Lastly, please provide a copy of Pitcher’s resignation letter.

Clerk’s Papers at 73.

The Spokesman-Review’s request covered documents that contained the names 

and other identifiers of Jane Does #1-9. The Spokane Falls Community College human 

resources office contacted the Does and warned that the records would be disclosed on 

March 20, 2018. Jane Does #1-9 respectively replied that, had each known her name 

would be disclosed, she would not have spoken to investigators. 
No. 36030-0-III

Jane Doe #1 v. Wash. State Comm. College

5

PROCEDURE

On March 16, 2018, before Spokane Falls Community College released any 

documents, Jane Does #1-9 filed a complaint, motion for temporary restraining order, and 

motion for permanent injunction. The Does did not challenge the underlying disclosure 

of the documents, but rather sought to enjoin the release of their names and identifiers 

contained within the documents. In other words, the Jane Does asked that the court direct 

the community college to excise their names and other identifying data from the records. 

On March 20, 2018, the trial court granted a temporary restraining order 

preventing Spokane Falls Community College from disclosing the names and identifiers 

of the Does. The court ordered that the documents be delivered to it for an in camera 

review. On March 21, 2018, the Does filed an amended complaint for injunction that 

added Jane Doe #10 as a plaintiff. 

Spokane Falls Community College released three batches of documents: (1) 

working documents, (2) investigation reports and exhibits, and (3) e-mail. The “working 

documents” include over six hundred pages of interview notes, complaints, investigation 

guidelines, interview timelines, and instant messenger messages. 

The investigation file and exhibits contain more than three hundred pages of 

documents and include an investigation report, e-mails, written statements, instant 

messenger transcripts, administrative procedures, college policies, and other information. 

None of the records in this category of documents suggest they arose from any personnel 
No. 36030-0-III

Jane Doe #1 v. Wash. State Comm. College

6

file. The produced records included four hundred pages of e-mail correspondence 

between and among employees of the community college. The community college 

maintains the e-mail in e-mail programs and e-mail servers, not in any employment file. 

On March 30, 2018, the trial court granted a permanent injunction that enjoins 

Spokane Falls Community College from disclosing the names and identifiers of Jane 

Does #1-10 in any response to the Spokesman-Review’s requests or in a response to 

future requests. The court categorized the records as exempt personal information under 

RCW 42.56.230(3) and declared that no legitimate public interest in the names and 

identities of the Does existed. 

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Washington’s Public Records Act requires state agencies to produce all public 

records on request unless a record falls within an exemption. Progressive Animal 

Welfare Society v. University of Washington, 125 Wn.2d 243, 250, 884 P.2d 592 (1994). 

The act mandates broad disclosure of public records in order to hold public officials and 

institutions accountable to the people. Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing 

Authority, 177 Wn.2d 417, 431, 327 P.3d 600 (2013); Progressive Animal Welfare 

Society v. University of Washington, 125 Wn.2d at 251 (1994). The people do not give 

public servants the right to decide what is good and what is not good for the people to 

know. RCW 42.56.030. Free and open examination of public records serves the public 

interest, even though such examination causes inconvenience or embarrassment to public 
No. 36030-0-III

Jane Doe #1 v. Wash. State Comm. College

7

officials or others. RCW 42.56.550(3). The public has a right to know who their public 

employees are and when those employees are not performing their duties. Predisik v. 

Spokane School District No. 81, 182 Wn.2d 896, 908, 346 P.3d 737 (2015). 

Because of the broad mandate behind the Public Records Act, the act’s disclosure 

provisions must be construed liberally and exemptions construed narrowly. West v. Port 

of Olympia, 183 Wn. App. 306, 311, 333 P.3d 488 (2014). Disclosure is limited only by 

the precise, specific, and limited exemptions that the act provides. Lyft, Inc. v. City of 

Seattle, 190 Wn.2d 769, 778, 418 P.3d 102 (2018). The party seeking to avoid disclosure 

bears the burden of proving an exemption applies. Ameriquest Mortgage Co. v. Office of 

Attorney General, 177 Wn.2d 467, 486-87, 300 P.3d 799 (2013). This allocation of the 

burden of proof looms important in this appeal. 

In addition to seeking redaction of their names from the community college 

records, the Jane Does seek the obscuration of their respective titles, positions held, and, 

in some instances, the departments in which one or more works. They refer to the 

information collectively as “identifiers.” Jane Does Nos. 1-10 rely on RCW 42.56.230(3) 

for redaction. The statute declares, in relevant part: 

The following personal information is exempt from public 

inspection and copying under this chapter:

. . . .

(3) Personal information in files maintained for employees . . . of 

any public agency to the extent that disclosure would violate their right to 

privacy. 
No. 36030-0-III

Jane Doe #1 v. Wash. State Comm. College

8

We refer to the exemption as the “personal information exception.” 

We parse RCW 42.56.230(3) to extract three discrete elements: (1) the records

contain personal information, (2) the information lies in a file maintained for employees, 

and (3) disclosure of the personal information would violate one’s right to privacy. The 

Spokesman-Review contends that the redacted information does not fulfill any of the three 

elements. We conclude that the information sought to be protected does not constitute 

information found in a file maintained for employees. Therefore, we do not address 

whether the information constitutes “personal information” or whether disclosure would 

violate the Jane Does’ right to privacy. 

The Public Records Act does not define “personal information.” In Cowles 

Publishing Co. v. State Patrol, 44 Wn. App. 882, 890-91, 724 P.2d 379 (1986), rev’d on 

other grounds, 109 Wn.2d 712, 748 P.2d 597 (1988) (quoting Turner v. Reed, 22 Ore.

App. 177, 538 P.2d 373 (1975)), this court borrowed an Oregon court’s definition for 

“personal information” as “‘normally not [to] be shared with strangers.’” Our state high 

court later more broadly defined the term as “‘information relating to or affecting a 

particular individual, information associated with private concerns, or information that is 

not public or general.’” Bainbridge Island Police Guild v. City of Puyallup, 172 Wn.2d 

398, 412, 259 P.3d 190 (2011) (quoting Bellevue John Does 1-11 v. Bellevue School 

District #405, 164 Wn.2d 199, 211, 189 P.3d 139 (2008)). The Bellevue John Does 

definition overlaps in part our court’s definition in Cowles Publishing, but significantly 
No. 36030-0-III

Jane Doe #1 v. Wash. State Comm. College

9

broadens the definition by including identifying information regardless of whether a 

reasonable person would seek to keep the data private. We avoid a determination of 

whether the Spokesman Review’s request seeks personal information. 

Regardless of whether the opponent of disclosure seeks to shield personal 

information, the information must be contained within files that are maintained for

employees. RCW 42.56.230(3). In Cowles Publishing Co. v. State Patrol, 44 Wn. App. 

882 (1986), the Spokesman-Review sought release of Spokane Police Department internal 

affairs investigation reports. The police department expressed willingness to release the 

records but only after redacting the names of officers. The department asserted that any 

file relating to a particular officer is “maintained” for that officer within the meaning of 

RCW 42.56.230(3). We deemed the contention overbroad and ordered release of the 

officers’ names. “That provision was intended to shield only that highly personal 

information often contained in employment and other personnel files.” Cowles 

Publishing Co. v. State Patrol, 44 Wn. App. at 891 (emphasis added). We listed 

examples of such information as an employee’s union dues, charitable contributions, 

deferred compensation, medical records, disabilities, employment performance 

evaluations, reasons for leaving employment, and sensitive records relating to health or 

family information necessary for calculating health plans, job benefits, and taxes. 

The Supreme Court reversed this court in Cowles Publishing Co. v. State Patrol, 

109 Wn.2d 712 (1988), but on a different ground. The high court agreed that the 
No. 36030-0-III

Jane Doe #1 v. Wash. State Comm. College

10

personal information exemption did not shield disclosure of the names, but that former 

RCW 42.17.310(1)(b) recodified now as RCW 42.56.210, which covers investigation 

records of law enforcement agencies, safeguarded release of the names. We thus 

consider our discussion of information found in files maintained for employees to remain 

good law. 

Tacoma Public Library v. Woessner, 90 Wn. App. 205, 951 P.2d 357, 972 P.2d 

932 (1998) (as modified on remand) also addressed the statutory phrase “files maintained 

for employees.” Carolyn Woessner sought disclosure, from the library, of information on 

employees’ rates of pay, amounts of vacation and leaves hours, benefits, and employer 

contributions to employee pensions. Woessner argued that the library did not maintain 

the files for employees because the city of Tacoma prepared the reports and the library 

did not include the reports in an employee’s personnel file. This court deemed 

Woessner’s reading of the exemption too narrow. This court reasoned that the statute 

does not specify that the exempted information actually come from an employee’s 

individual personnel file. The court directed the focus to be on whether the requested file 

contains personal information normally maintained for the benefit of employees rather 

than the location where the agency stores the information. 

The Jane Does principally rely on Bainbridge Island Police Guild v. City of 

Puyallup, 172 Wn.2d 398 (2011). A police officer and his union brought action seeking 

to enjoin disclosure of a criminal investigation report and internal investigation report 
No. 36030-0-III

Jane Doe #1 v. Wash. State Comm. College

11

from a police department in regards to allegations of sexual assault against a police 

officer. The Supreme Court ruled that the department must produce the report, but could 

excise the officer’s name. The court held that the name of the officer constituted personal 

information since the allegations of misconduct were never substantiated. The high court 

never addressed whether the records were the type of records found in a file maintained 

for the benefit of an employee. 

We question the validity of Bainbridge Island Police Guild v. City of Puyallup

after the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Predisik v. Spokane School District No. 81, 

182 Wn.2d 896 (2015). Nevertheless, we find Bainbridge Island to be inapplicable 

because the allegations of sexual misconduct were never substantiated. According to the 

Jane Does, Spokane Falls Community College substantiated the complaints against 

Darren Pitcher. We also emphasize that the Bainbridge Island court never addressed 

RCW 42.56.230(3)’s discrete element of the information arising from a file maintained 

for employees. 

The Jane Does carry the burden of establishing an exemption shields the 

identifying information sought to be redacted. Despite arguing to the contrary, the Jane 

Does present no evidence that Spokane Falls Community College kept the subject records 

in any personnel file. The Jane Does present no facts that the records were similar in 

nature to records maintained for the benefit of an employee. 

During oral argument, counsel for the Jane Does characterized his clients as 
No. 36030-0-III 

Jane Doe #1 v. Wash. State Comm. College 

courageous women who spoke against abuse from a powerful man. We agree. We 

applaud the Jane Does as important whistleblowers. Their courage expands in light of 

the state's policy of demanding disclosure of the women's names in response to a Public 

Records Act request. 

CONCLUSION 

We reverse the superior court's order permitting redaction of personal identifiers. 

We remand for the superior court to order release, without excision, of the requested 

records. 

A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 

2.06.040. 

Fearing, J. 

WE CONCUR: 

Lawrence-Berrey, C.J. 

12