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 COLLEG E S OF SPOKANE; an agency of the STATE OF WASHIN GTON , 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UNPUBLISHED OPINION

F EARING , J.

— Based on the P ublic R ecords A ct ’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 IIINo. 36030

- 0

- III

Jane Doe #1 v. W

ash. State Comm. College

2 ordering the redaction of names and other identifying information of victi ms and witnesses found in investigati ve records held by the S pokane 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 R ecords
A ct, 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
A ppellant Cowles Publishing C ompany 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 P ublic R ecords A ct 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 h uman r esources office in 2016 , so we ass ume Pitcher served in another position with the community college at an earlier date . When the officeNo. 36030

- 0

- III

Jane Doe #1 v. W

ash. State Comm. College

3 withheld action in response, Jane Doe #1 broaden ed 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 co mplaint 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 re taliation against Darren Pitcher with Spokane Falls Community College ’s h uman

resources o ffice

. Doe #1 identified herself in this second complaint. The complaint detailed P itcher’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 wit h her. Doe #1 further informed the human resources offic e 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 D oes #2

- 9 . Jane Doe #9 reported that Darren Pitcher sent instant messenger messages to her of a sexual nature. The me ssagesNo. 36030

- 0

- III

Jane Doe #1 v. W

ash. State Comm. College

4 described and commented o n 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 followin g public record request to S pokane F alls C ommunity C ollege :

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 contain ed the names and other identifiers of Jane Do es #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 t hat , had each known her name would be disclosed, she would not have spoken to investigators.No. 36030

- 0

- III

Jane Doe #1 v. W

ash. State Comm. College

5

PROCEDURE On March 16, 2018, before Spokane Falls Community College released any documents, Jane Do es #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, t he 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 docu ments” include over six hundred pages of interview notes, complaints, investigation guidelines, interview timelines, and instant messenger messages. The i nvestigation file and exhibits contain more than three hundred pages of documents and include an inv estigation 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 personnelNo. 36030

- 0

- III

Jane Doe #1 v. W

ash. 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 employ ment file

. On March 30, 2018, t he trial court granted a permanent injunction that enjoins Spokane Falls Community College f rom 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 t he 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 P ublic R ecords A ct requires state agencies to produce all pub lic records on request unless a record falls within an exemption. Progressive Animal Welfare Soci ety v. University of Washington , 125 Wn.2d 243, 250 , 884 P .2 d 592 (1994). The act mandates broad disclosure of public records in order to hold public officia ls 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
Soci ety 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

. F ree and open examination of public records serves the public interest, even though such examination cause s inconvenience or embarrassment to pub licNo. 36030

- 0

- III

Jane Doe #1 v. W

ash. 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).
Bec ause o f the broad mandate behind the P ublic R ecords A ct, 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 obs curation 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 w ould violate their right to privacy.No. 36030

- 0

- III

Jane Doe #1 v. W

ash. 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 mai ntained 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 P ubl ic R ecords A ct 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 3 73 (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 indi vidual, 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) ) . Th e Bellevue John Does definition overlaps in part our court’s definition in Cowles Publishing , but significantlyNo. 36030

- 0

- III

Jane Doe #1 v. W

ash. State Comm. College

9 broadens the definition by including identifying information regardless of whether a reasonab le 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 file s that are ma intained for employee s . 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 po lice 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 , 4 4 Wn. App. at 891 (emphasis added). We listed

e xamples 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 theNo. 36030

- 0

- III

Jane Doe #1 v. W

ash. State Comm. College

10 personal information exemption did not shield disclosure of the names, but that former RCW 42.17.3 1 0(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 st atutory 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 ar gued that the library did not maintain the files for employees because the c ity of Tacoma prepared the reports and the library did not include the reports in an employee’s personnel file. Th is 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 maintai ned 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 p olice officer and his union brought action seeking to enjoin disclosure of a criminal investigation report and internal investigation reportNo. 36030

- 0

- III

Jane Doe #1 v. W

ash. 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 r eport, 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 rec ords 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 em phasize 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 recor ds maintained for the benefit of an employee. During oral argument, counsel for the Jane Does characterized his clients asNo. 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