### FILED NOVEMBER 10,2015 In the Office ofthe Clerk ofCourt WA State Court ofAppeals, Division III INTHECOURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE ERIC BURT, GARYEDWARDS, ) SHERRYHARTFORD, JOANN IRWIN, ) JOHNMOORE, CLIFFORD PEASE, ) DAVID SNELL, HAROLD SNIVELY, ) ALANWALTER, DUSTIN WEST, ) PAUL-DA VID WINTERS, CHERI ) STERLIN, LAURACOLEMAN, ) CHARLES CROW, RICHARD "JASON" ) MORGAN, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) 

### v. ) ) WASHINGTON STATEDEPARTMENT ) OF CORRECTIONS, ) ) Respondent, ) ) ALLANPARMELEE, ) ) Appellant. ) ) ) MARKABBOTT, et al.,t ) Plaintiffs, ) ) 

### v. ) ) WASHINGTON STATEDEPARTMENT ) OF CORRECTIONS, ) ) Respondent, ) ) ALLANPARMELEE, ) ) Appellant. )



## t SeeAppendix for a list ofall plaintiffs. No. 

### 31560-6-111 (consolidatedwith No. 

### 31559-2-111)

PUBLISHED OPINION

### No. 31560-6-III (consolidated with No. 31559-2-III) Burt

### v. Dep 't of Corr.


### SIDOOWAY, 

### C.J.

- The late Allan Parmelee, while incarcerated in the Washington State Penitentiary, persuasively arguedto the Washington Supreme Courtthat public record requestors like himselfare necessary parties when third parties seekto enjoin agencies from responding to requests under the Public Records Act (PRA), chapter42.56 RCW. As aresult, two cases that Washington Department ofCorrections (DOC) employees broughtto enjoin their employer from releasingpersonal information to 

### Mr. Parmelee were remanded to the Walla Walla Superior Court with directives to add 

### Mr. Parmelee as aparty. By the time ofthe remands, the legislature had broadenedthe authority ofcourts to enjoin vexatious public record requests from inmates, and the Thurston County Superior Courthad exercised that authority to enjoin Mr. Parmelee from making any request for information on DOC employees for five years. As a result, both ofthe remanded cases were dismissed. In dismissingthe cases, the trial court denied Mr. Parmelee's request for an award ofattorney fees and costs. On appeal, Mr. Parmelee's estate does not challenge dismissal ofthe actions but it does argue that it is entitled to recover attorney fees and costs. Butthe rule ofequity under which aparty can recover fees incurred in dissolving an injunction applies to dissolving wrongful interlocutory 

### injunctions, and no interlocutory injunction was entered in these cases nor would one be. Forthat reason, and because the trial court did



### 2

### No. 31560-6-II1 (consolidated with No. 31559-2-III) Burtv. 

### Dep 't of Corr.



### not abuse its discretion in finding that Mr. Parmalee came into courtwith "unclean hands," we affirm. FACTSANDPROCEDURALBACKGROlmD Alan Parmelee was an inmate incarcerated in Washington corrections facilities at times relevant tothis appeal. He passed away in October 2013, while in the custody of the DOC, and this action is beingpursued by his estate. The consolidated cases before us are lawsuits broughtby DOC employees to enjoin their employer's release ofpersonal information to Mr. Parmelee. Eric Burtwas the leadplaintiffin the first lawsuit and MarkAbbott was the leadplaintiffin the second. Atissue in this appeal are proceedingsthat tookplace after Mr. Burt's lawsuit was remandedto the superior court following the Washington Supreme Court's decision in Burtv. Washington State Department of Corrections, 

### 168 Wn.2d 828, 231 P.3d 191 (2010) and afterMr. Abbott's lawsuit, which this court stayed pending a decision in Burt,


### was remandedtothe superior court following ourunpublished decision in Parmelee 

### v. Washington State Department of Corrections (Abbott) I

### ,noted at 161 Wn. App. 1015, 2011 WL 1631722 (2011). Events that had earliertranspired in those lawsuits and in the DOC'sThurston

1 

### We referto this decision as "Abbott"to distinguish it from other appellate decisions, discussed hereafter, whose case names include "Parmelee."



### 3No. 3 I560-6-III (consolidatedwith No. 3 I559-2-III) 

### Burtv. Dep 't of Corr. County lawsuit against Mr. Parmelee are relevant to the issues on appeal. We start with the history ofthe three lawsuits predatingthe 2010 and 2011 remands. 

### I. Proceedings Beforethe 2010 and 2011 Remands

Burtv. Washington StateDep't ofCorrections 

### Walla Walla Superior Court Case No. 05-2-00075-0 FiledJanuary 

### 26, 2005 Eric Burt and 10 other employees ofthe DOC filed suit in 2005 to obtain a protective order enjoining their employer from respondingto a public records request filed by Mr. Parmelee in October2004. Mr. Parmelee'srequest soughtphotographs of the employees and their addresses, incomes, retirement and disability information, administrative grievances or internal investigations ofthe employees, and "any documents notpreviously listed above, relatedto the persons listed above." Clerk's Papers (CP) at99. The employees' complaint citedMr. Parmelee's criminal background, which included his current offense-two counts of(retaliatory) first degree arson-forwhich he had received an exceptional sentence; and his history ofusing information obtained under the PRA for harassmentpurposes. The department responded with its own memorandum in support ofgrantingthe protective orderrequestedby its employees. 

### Burt, 168 Wn.2d at 830.The trial courtgranted the employees' request for an injunction under former RCW42.17.330 (1992) (recodified as RCW42.56.540 by LAWS of2005, ch. 274, § 103,

4No. 31560-6-111 (consolidatedwith No. 31559-2-111) Burt v. Dep't

## 0/ Corr.
effective July 1,2006)) and permanently enjoinedrelease ofthe requested records. 

### It found that Mr. Parmelee "has a history ofattemptingto obtain personal information against anyone who opposes his wishes to use it to harass, intimidate, threaten and slandervictims and their families." CP at 99. 

### It also found that a letter from Mr. Parmelee intercepted by penitentiary staffhad soughthome addresses ofemployees of the Washington State Penitentiary so that Mr. Parmelee could have "some big ugly dudes

cometo Walla Walla for some late night service ofthesepunks. Obviously some show ofmuscle needs to be sent." Id. The court concludedthat examination ofthe records by Mr. Parmelee "wouldnotbe in the public interest" and would "substantially and irreparably damage" the employees and "thevital governmental function ofoperating safe and secure prisons." Id. at 100. When Mr. Parmelee learnedthat the trial court had enjoined any response to his request, he filed a limited notice ofappearance seekingto intervene in the action and seekingreconsideration. The trial court denied his motion. This court affirmed, rejecting Mr. Parmelee's argumentthat he was an indispensableparty under CR 19(a). Burt V. Wash. Dep'to/Corr., 141 Wn. App. 573,575, 170 P.3d 608 (2007), rev'dbyBurt V. Dep'to/Corr., 168 Wn.2d 828, 231 P.3d 191 (2010).



### 5No. 31560-6-III (consolidated with No. 31559-2-III) 

### Burt v. Dep'to/Corr.
Mr. Parmeleepetitioned for review by the Washington Supreme Court, which was granted. In a plurality decision/ the Supreme Courtreversed this court, holding thatMr. Parmelee was a necessaryparty to the injunctionproceedingbecause no otherparty represented his interest. 

### Burt, 168 Wn.2d at 836-37. As the opinion for theplurality observed, "with both the DOC and the employees opposing disclosure, no party to the action was a proponent ofdisclosure.
. .. The only person who wanted to see the records disclosed in this case wasthe person left out ofthe action, Mr. Parmelee." Id. at 835-36. The court dissolved the injunction and remanded with directions that Mr. Parmeleebe joined as a party. Theplurality declined Mr. Parmelee'srequest for attorney fees and costs under RCW42.56.550(4) and the equitableright to attorney fees for dissolving a wrongful injunction, noting that itwas not resolving whetherMr. Parmelee was entitledtothe records requested ordetermining whetherthe injunction was wrongfully issued. Id. at 838.

2 Fivejustices agreedthatMr. Parmelee was a necessary party to the injunction proceeding. 

### Burt, 168 Wn.2d at 829, 839 (Sanders, J., concurring). The fourjustice plurality concluded Mr. Parmelee was not entitledto sanctions based on the employees' failure to provide their addresses and signatures with the pleadings, given thatthey were

.seekingprotection from disclosure ofthis very information underRCW42.56.540. Id. at

837. The concurringjusticewould have awarded sanctions. Id. at 840.

6

### No. 3 I560-6-III (consolidated with No. 3 I559-2-III) Burt

### v. Dep 't

## 0/ Corr.


### Abbott v. Dep'tofCorrections Walla Walla Superior Court CaseNo. 06-2-01016-8 FiledDecember 19, 2006 

### In December 2006, MarkAbbott and 646 other employees ofthe DOC filed a petition for temporary restraining order and permanent injunction seekingto enjoin the DOC from releasing theirpersonal information to Mr. Parmelee. Thetrial court granted the motion for apermanent injunction in January 2007, refused to allow Mr. Parmelee to intervene, and Mr. Parmelee appealed. Mr. Parmelee moved this courtto stay his appeal pendingthe Supreme Court's resolution ofBurt, 

### and given the similarity ofthe two cases, his motion was granted. SeeAbott, 

### 2011 WL 1631722 at *2 (2011). Afterthe Supreme Court decided Burt, 

### this court vacated the trial court's injunction inAbbott

### and remanded with directions that Mr. Parmelee bejoined as aparty. Abbott, 

### 2011 WL 1631722, at *1. The courtrejected a fee request, stating "itwould be premature to award fees" under RCW42.56.550(4). Id. 

### at *3. Dep't ofCorrections v. Parmelee Thurston CountySuperior CourtNo. 09-2-02079-2 FiledJanuary 29, 2007 

### In 2009, our legislature enacted S.B. 5130, Laws 

### 0/2009, ch. 10, 

### § 1, codified at RCW 42.56.565, to address abusive requests for public records by inmates. The statute authorizes courts to enjoin the inspection or copying ofeven nonexemptpublicrecords by persons "serving criminal sentences in state, local, or privately operated correctional facilities" ifthe court finds

7No. 31560-6-III (consolidatedwith No. 31559-2-III) Burtv. Dep 't of Corr. (i) The request was made toharass or intimidate the agency orits employees; (ii) Fulfilling the request would likely threaten the security ofcorrectional facilities; (iii) Fulfillingthe request would likely threaten the safety or security of staff, inmates, family members ofstaff, family members ofother inmates, or any otherperson; or (iv) Fulfillingthe request may assist criminal activity. RCW42.56.565(2)(c). The statute authorizes courts to enjoin future requests by the same requestor for a reasonable period oftime. RCW42.56.565(4); Burt, 168 Wn.2d at 837 n.9. Followingthe 2009 legislation, the DOC, along with the state Office ofthe Attorney General, petitioned the Thurston County Superior Court for injunctive relief against Mr. Parmelee. Following a hearing, in November 2009the courtentered seven pages offindings from which it concluded that the DOC andthe Attorney General had proved every one ofthe four alternative statutory bases for enjoining an inmate from inspecting orcopyingpublic records. It enjoined Mr. Parmelee from "inspecting, copying, orreceiving records not yetprovided to him that are responsive to any and all PRArequests hehas submitted to the DepartmentofCorrections, the Attorney General's Office, or any other agency ofthe State ofWashington." CP at 35. It further provided that the DOC and other state agencies "haveno obligation underthe PRAto further search for, preserve, orin any other wayprocess records responsive to Mr. Parmelee's PRArequests." CP at 36.

8

### No. 3I 

### 560-6-III (consolidated with No. 3I 

### 559-2-III) Burtv. 

### Dep'tof Corr.


### II. Proceedings Following the 2010 and 2011 Remands Following the remands ofBurt 

### and thenAbott, 

### Mr. Parmelee moved to dismiss both complaints on the grounds that the DOC employees' complaints failed to identify a specific statutory exemptionjustifyingnondisclosure, whichhe contendedwas essential underthe PRA. He arguedhe was entitled to attorney fees and costs inboth cases for dissolving a wrongfully entered injunction. He also argued that the DOC should be required to pay his costs because it had misled the trial court as to applicable law. In its response, the DOC agreed that both cases should be dismissed, but based on the five-year injunction issuedby the Thurston County Superior Court. The DOC also argued that Mr. Parmelee should not be granted equitable attorney fees both because the law relating to injunctions under the PRA was not as clear as he contended and because Mr. 

### Parmelee came into court with "uncleanhands." CP at 18-22. The Walla Walla Superior Court heard argument ofthepost-remand issues in Burt 

### andAbbott 

### in a consolidated hearing. It denied Mr. Parmelee's motion to dismiss and granted the DOC's. It

### denied Mr. Parmelee's request for attorney fees based on its written finding that the "equities balanced out" or, as the court stated when it orally ruled, "I don'tthink either side has clean hands." CP at 91; Report ofProceedings (RP) at 12. Mr. Parmelee appealed the trial court's denial ofhis request for attorney fees and costs in both cases.

9

# I I 

# I No. 3I560-6-III (consolidatedwith No. 3I559-2-III) 

### Burt v. 

### Dep 't of Corr. 

# J 

# I ANALYSIS Underthe American rule, parties must generally paytheir own attorney fees. The 

# I rule is subjectto exceptions for a contractual or statutory right to fees or a "recognized ground ofequity." 

### Hsu Ying Liv. 

### Tang, 87 Wn.2d 796, 797-98, 557 P.2d 342 (1976). Equitable exceptions to the Americanrule include "misconduct orbad faith by a party" and "thedissolution oftemporaryrestraining orders orinjunctions when wrongfully issued." 

### RustlewoodAss'n v. 

### Mason County, 96 Wn. App. 788,801,981 P.2d 7 (1999); 

### Pub. Uti!. Dist. No.1 v. 

### Kottsick, 86 Wn.2d 388, 390, 545 P.2d 1 (1976). Mr. Parmelee's estate invokes both ofthese equitable exceptions. 

### Wrongful issuance of irljunction "[A] trial court, in exercising its discretion, may award attorney fees
...when a party prevails in dissolving a wrongfully issued injunction ortemporary restraining order." 

### Cornell Pump Co. v. 

### City of Bellingham, 123 Wn. App. 226,232, 98 P.3d 84 (2004) (citing 

### Confederated Tribes of Chehalis Reservation v. 

### Johnson, 135 Wn.2d 734, 758,958 P.2d 260 (1998)); 15 KARL B. TEGLAND, WASHINGTON PRACTICE: CIVIL PROCEDURE §44:33, at 280 (2d ed. 2009) ("The defendant is not entitled to attorney fees [incurred in dissolving a preliminary injunction] as a matter ofright. The award is discretionary with the court."). "Atrial court has abused its discretion ifits decision is manifestly unreasonable orbased onuntenable grounds." 

### Morgan v. 

### City of Fed. Way, 166 Wn.2d 747,758,213 P.3d 596 (2009).

10No. 3 1 560-6-III (consolidated with No. 3 1 559-2-III) Burt

### v. Dep 't o/Corr.
The PRA's injunction statute, RCW42.56.540, provides that [t]he examination ofany specificpublic record may be enjoined if, upon motion and affidavitby
... a personwho is named in the record or to whomthe record specifically pertains, the superior court ... finds that such examinationwould clearly notbe inthepublic interest andwould substantially and irreparably damage any person, or would substantially and irreparably damage vital governmental functions. RCW42.56.540. While the statuteprovides an injunction remedy and dictates the showing required, it does not address the procedure to be followed. The procedure for obtaining interlocutory injunctions is governed by CR 65 and chapter 7.40 RCW. Underthe court rule, the statutes, and other rules and statutes relating to finaljudgments, a third party seekingto enjoin an agency from disclosing orreleasing a public record may seek a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction or a permanent injunction-or, at different stages, two ofthe remedies, or all three. Northwest GasAss'n 

### v. Washington Uitlities andTransportation Commission, 141 Wn. App. 98, 168 P.3d443 (2007) is illustrative. InNorthwest Gas, the Washington utilities and transportation commission (WUTC) notified gas pipeline companies of public record requests 

### ithad received for records containing highly detailed data on the location ofthe companies' pipelines. The WUTC notified the pipeline companies that 

### it would release the records unless the requests were withdrawn or an injunction was obtained. 141 Wn. App. at 109. Thepipeline companies acted: they first obtained



### 11

### No. 31560-6-111 (consolidated with No. 31559-2-111) Burtv. Dep 't of Corr. 

### temporary restraining orders, at which time the superior court scheduledpreliminary injunction hearings. Thepipeline companies contemplated that sometime following the preliminary injunction hearing, there would be atrial addressing theirrequest for permanent injunctionrelief. 141 Wn. App. at 109-10. The trial court denied the companies' request for apreliminary injunction at the hearing on that motion and at the
same time ordered the WUTC to disclose the requested records. Our court granted accelerated review, agreeing with the pipeline companies that by ordering disclosure ofthe records the trial court had conflated permanent injunctive reliefwith preliminary injunctive relief. The court explainedthe intended operation of CR65: The process generally progresses from temporary restraining order, to preliminary injunction, to permanent injunction. CR65(a)(2) provides, however, that "[b]efore or afterthe commencement ofthe hearing ofan application for apreliminary injunction, the court may orderthe trial ofthe action on the merits to be advanced and consolidated" with the preliminary injunction application hearing. [(quoting CR65(a)(2))]. But "[i]f[a] court does not expressly statethat it is consolidatingthe injunction hearing and a trial onthe merits, it may not render a final determination on the merits." 141 Wn. App. at 113 (some alterations in original) (quotingLeague ofWomen Voters v. King CountyRecords, Elections & 

### LicensingServs. Div., 

### 133 Wn. App. 374, 382, 135 P.3d 985 (2006)). The purpose ofthe rule, as the court explained, is "to give the parties notice and time to prepare so that they will have a full opportunity to presenttheir cases at the permanent injunction hearing." Id. 

### at 114; accordAmeriquestMortg. Co. v. Atty.



### 12

### No. 31560-6-III (consolidated with No. 31559-2-III) Burt

### v. Dep 't ofCorr. Gen., 

### 148 Wn. App. 145, 155-56, 199 P.3d 468 (2009) (trial court similarly conflated the preliminary injunction hearing with a full hearing on the merits). In seeking attorney fees for dissolving a wrongful injunction, Mr. Parmeleerelies
on cases that-unlikeBurt

### andAbbott-involve interlocutory 

### injunctions wrongfully obtainedunder CR65 before the parties' dispute can be resolved on the full merits. The rule ofequity under which aparty may recover fees incurred in dissolving a wrongful injunction recognizes a unique harm that is suffered when aparty's freedom to act is constrained before a trial court is presented with all ofthe parties' evidence and argument. The rule "does not entitle a successful defendant to recover all

### attorney's fees incurred in defending against injunctive relief." Ritchie 

### v. Markley, 

### 23 Wn. App. 569, 575,597 P.2d 449 (1979) (emphasis added), overruledon othergrounds by Cowiche Canyon Conservancy 

### v. Bosley, 

### 118 Wn.2d 801,823,828P.2d 549 (1992». Rather, Its purpose is to deterplaintiffs from seekingunnecessarypreliminary injunctions or restrainingorderspendingtrial, 

### and accordingly it authorizes recovery only ofthose fees which a defendant incurs in dissolving a wrongfully issuedpreliminary injunction or restraining order. Id. 

### (emphasis added and omitted). "Atemporary restraining order is 'wrongful' if

### itis dissolved atthe conclusion ofa full hearing." InoIno, Inc. v. City of Bellevue, 132 

### Wn.2d 103,143,937P.2d 154 (1997). Attorney fees also cease to be recoverable ifa temporary restraining order is dissolved by agreement, by a motion and hearing, orwhere
apreliminary injunction is dissolved by trial on the merits. Id.

13

### No. 31560-6-III (consolidated with No. 31559-2-III) Burt

### v. Dep 't o/Corr.


### In an action under the PRA injunction statute, the proceeding at which the trial court makes its final determination whether or not therecords will be required to be disclosed is

### the proceeding on the merits, whether it is atrial or a hearing. This was illustrated in Franklin County Sheriff's Office 

### v. Parmelee, 

### 175 Wn.2d 476, 285 P.3d 67 (2012). In that case, the superiorcourt initially enjoined one ofMr. Parmelee's requests for records without giving Mr. Parmelee a chance to respond but was persuaded by Mr. Parmeleeto set aside its permanent injunction. It then entered atemporary restraining orderpreventingthe agency from releasing records pending apermanent injunction hearing. 175 Wn.2d at 478-79. The sheriffs office appealedthe temporary restraining order, which the Supreme Courtheld was premature, explaining: Importantly, at that [permanent injunction] hearing, the trial court would have determined whetherthe records were exempt from disclosure based on the information in the records in relation to the statutory inquiry. Without knowingthe contents ofthe records, no basis would exist for the trial court to determine the additional "public interest" and harm findings under RCW 42.56.540. Id. 

### at 480-81. Federal Way FamilyPhysicians, Inc. 

### v. Tacoma Stands Up/or Life, 106 

### Wn.2d 261,268,721 P.2d946 (1986) demonstrates that the wrongfulness ofan injunction is always determined in the trial court, because it always concerns only interlocutory relief. In Stands Up, 

### the court held that aparty's right to attorney fees for quashing a temporary restraining order at the preliminary injunction stage

14

### No. 31560-6-111 (consolidated with No. 31559-2-111) Burtv. Dep 't of Corr.


### should abide the outcome ofthe hearing on the merits. If, aftertaking additional evidence, the trial court concludes that apermanent injunction should not issue, the trial court should award petitioners their fees for prosecuting this appeal. On the otherhand, ifrespondents prevail on the merits, petitioners' request for fees must be denied. Id. 

### at 268. As one author has explained, "Withthe grant ofa permanent injunction, the anticipatory reliefgiven the plaintiffis lifted, and he is in a class with all other litigants. Injuries suffered after a final injunction should be no more ascribed to him than were he to have gotten no preliminary relief." Note, InterlocutoryInjunctions andthe Injunction Bond, 

### 73 HARV. 

### L. 

### REv. 333, 346 (1959). Washington decisions addressing which fees can berecovered are in accord and hold that recoverable fees are limited to those incurred during the time period thatbegins with entry ofa temporaryrestraining order orpreliminary injunction and ends with the determination that the records are not exempt from production and mustbe disclosed. If fees are awarded based on the rule ofequity in apublic records action, "they would be limited to those necessary to dissolve the temporary restraining order, not those connected withthe appeal." Johnson, 

### 135 Wn.2d at 759 (denying fees to party who prevailedbefore Supreme Court as to the nonexempt status ofgambling commission records whose disclosure certain Indian tribes had suedto enjoin). CfGander v. Yeager, 

### 167 Wn. App. 638,649-50,282 P.3d 1100 (2012) (recognizingthat where apermanent anti-harassment order is appealed after trial, therule "allowing for attorney fees as

15No. 31560-6-111 (consolidated with No. 31559-2-111) 

### Burt

### v. Dep 't of Corr. damages where a party is forced to litigate in a trial onthe merits, focused solely on vacating a temporary injunction, does not apply"). Our Supreme Court denied an award offees in 

### Burt, ruling, as we did in

### Abbott, that fees mayormay notbecome available under the rule ofequity, depending on future proceedings following remand. Dismissal ofthe complaintsputan endto any possibility that an interlocutory injunction would be wrongfully entered and later dissolved at a trial

orhearing onthe merits. There was no basis for an award offees underthe equitable rule. 3 

### Misconduct or bad faith The Parmelee estate's argument that misconduct orbad faith supports an award of fees is predicated onDOC's alleged characterization of

### Dawson v. 

### Daly, 120 Wn.2d 782, 794, 845 P.2d 995 (1993), 

### abrogated inpartbyProgressiveAnimal Welfare Society v. 

### University ofWashington (PAWS), 125 Wn.2d 243,884 P.2d 592 (1994), as establishing that a court may enjoinproduction ofapublic record without determining that it falls within a specific statutory exemption from the PRA. The estate argues that this was a

3 Fees could sometimesberecovered in PRA injunction cases under former RCW 42.17.340(4), whichprovides that a personwhoprevails in an action to inspect a public record "shall be awarded all costs, including reasonable attorney fees, incurred in connection with such legal action." However, the provision does not authorize an award offees in action brought by aprivateparty to prevent disclosure ofpublic records held by an agency that has agreed to release the records but is prevented from doing so by court order. 

### E.g., Tiberino v. Spokane County, 103 Wn. App. 680,692, 13 P.3d 1104 (2000). No issue ofentitlement to fees under former RCW42.17.340 is before us.

16

### No. 3I 

### 560-6-III (consolidated with No. 3I 

### 559-2-III) 

### Burtv. Dep 't of Corr.
deliberate mischaracterization ofthe law in light of

### PAWS, decided the year after 

### Dawson. Ourinherent equitable powers authorize the award ofattorney fees in cases of bad faith. 

### In re RecallofPearsall-Stipek, 136 Wn.2d 255, 266-67, 961 P.2d 343 (1998). We review a trial court's decision to award or deny attorney fees for abuse ofdiscretion. Id. 

### at 265. In rejecting Mr. Parmelee's allegations oflitigation misconduct by the State, the trial court acknowledged that "the Department maybe messed up" but, with some explanation, announced, "Idon'tthink either side has clean hands, and I'm denying attorney fees." RP at 11-12.4 "It

### is well settled that a party with unclean hands cannot
recover in equity." 

### Miller 

### v. PaulM WolffCo., 178 Wn. App. 957, 965, 316 P.3d 1113 (2014).

4 As Division Two ofthis court observed in a separate case involving Mr. Parmelee, the holding in 

### PAWSis not as straightforward as the estate argues. 

### See DeLongv. Parmelee, 157 Wn. App. 119, 151,236P.3d 936 (2010), 

### dismissedon remand, 164 Wn App. 781, 267 P.3d 410 (2011). Andbefore a court may impose attorney fees as a sanction under its inherent authority, itmust make a finding that the conduct was at least "tantamountto bad faith." 

### State v. 

### Gassman, 175 Wn.2d 208,211,283 P.3d 1113 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 

### State v. S.H, 102 Wn. App. 468, 474,8 P.3d 1058 (2000)). In this context, "the definition of

### badfaith is fairly narrow and places a significant burden on the party claiming attorney fees." 14A KARLB. TEGLAND, WASHINGTON PRACTICE: CIVIL PROCEDURE § 37:14, at 672-73 (2d ed. 2009). A trial court abuses its discretion in awarding attorney fees as sanctions where the trialjudge finds only "careless" action by an attorney, as appears could have been the court's view here ("maybe messed up").

17No. 3 I560-6-III (consolidatedwith No. 3 I559-2-III) Burtv. Dep 't of Corr.
Thetrial courtdiscussedthe four-member dissent in Burtin its oral ruling, in which the dissenters criticized Mr. Parmelee andhis motives. Theestate complains that the record availableto the dissenters was ofproceedings from which he hadbeen wrongly excluded. ButMr. Parmeleewas a party to the Thurston Countyproceedingthat enjoined him from requesting department records for five years, and the findings, conclusions and order in thatproceeding-whichare preclusive as to Mr. Parmeleewere squarelybefore thetrial court as the basis for dismissingthe actions. The findings ofthe Thurston County Superior Courtprovide ample support for the trial court's determinationthat Mr. Parmelee's statedreason for seekingpersonnel records ofDOC employees wasto harass them, the motive that wasthe basis for the trial court's finding ofunclean hands. Affirmed. 

# :J;VouJ**,~** Siddoway, CJ. 

# %=.

WE CONCUR:

Fearing, J.

18No. 31560-6-III (consolidated with No. 31559-2-111) 

### Burtv. Dep 't o/Corrections Appendix

APPENDIX LIST OF ALL NAMED PLAINTIFFS No. 31559-2-III M. ABBOTT, C. ABEL, C. ABERNATHY, A. ADAMS, L. ADAMS, T. ADAMS, 1. ALEJANDRE, D. ALEXANDER, C. ALLEN, B. ALLESSIO, R. ALEXANDER, T. AlLINGTON, A. ALVARADO-JACKSON, C. ANDERSON, K. ANDERSON-BENNETT, M. ANDRING, A. ANGOTTI,

### J. ANTHONY, M. ARBUCKLE, A. ARIETA, 

### J. ARMES, E. ARMES, M. ARROYO, R. ARMSTRONG, J. ATTEBERRY,J. ATWOOD,

### J. AVERY, D. AVILA, A. AYALA, D. AYCOCK, A. BAILEY, 1. BAILEY, R. BAKER, S. BARKER, D. R. BASE SR., D.R. BASE II, 

### J. BASE, M. BATES, E. BAUMANN, C. BAUSTIAN, D. BAYER, R. BEAL, S. BECK, K. BELANGER, L. BELANGER, R. BELKNAP, G. BENAVIDES, D. BENDIXSEN, D. BENFIELD,

### A. BENNETT, J. BENNETT, T. BENNETT, G. BENSON, 1. BICKFORD, W. BIDDISCOMBE, L. BIEGHLER, G. BIRDWELL, K. BIRDWELL, B. BISCONER, K. BLEVINS, K. BLODGETT, C. BLY, D. BLY, T. BOHANAN, G. BOOTH, R. BOWE, C. BOWMAN, M. BRADLEY, R. BRANSCUM, D. BRASHEAR, G. BRASHEAR, D. BRELAND, K. BRODHEAD, G. BROOKS, A. BROWN,F. BROWN, G. BROWN, 1. BROWN, K. BROWN, T. BROWN, W. BROWN, C. BRUCE, C. BULL, K. BURNS, 1. BURRES, E. BURT,

### J. BURT,

### K. BURT, M. BUTLER, S. CALKINS, H. CALLAHAN, C. CAMPO, J. CAMPOS, T. CARD, F. CARRANZA, S. CARROL, A. CASEY, C. CARSON, J. CASBEER, R. CASE, E. CASTILLO, C. CAUGHRON, J. CAVANESS, J. CERNA, M. CHAFFEY, R. CHANEY, T. CHANEY,

### J. CHAPPELL, D. CHLIPALA, D. CHRISTENSEN,

### J. CHRISTY, C. CLARK, G. CLARK, L. CLARK, M. CLARK, B. CLARKE, B. CLIFTON, K. CLOUGH, D. COBLE, 1. COERS, 1. COLEMAN, L. COLEMAN, I. COLIN, 1. COLL, R. COLLINS, W. COOKE, D. COOKE, C. COOPER,

### J. COON, K. CORN, R. CORNELL, D. COTTON, H. COTY, J. COURTNEY, C. COVARRUBIAS, C. COWDEN, J. CRAIG, M. CRAIG, T. CRAMER, E. CREWSE, S. CRIDER, L. CROSS, R. CROSS, M. CROUSER, C. CROW, A. CRUZ, W. CYTANOVICH, J. DAGGETT, E. DAHLIN, D. DANLY, D. DAUDT, K. L. DAVENPORT, K. D. DAVENPORT, H. DAVIN, H. DAVIS, K. DAVIS, E. DAY, S. DE LEON, H. DELGADO, D. DELP, J. DEMORY, D. DESMOND, R. DESMOND, D. DESTITO, J. DEVEREAUX,

### J. DEVOIR, J. DILL, R. DILLA, R. DIXON, R. DODD, T. DODDS, D. DOLL, B. DONE, E. DOWNS, B. DRASKOVIC, D. DUGGER, A. DUNlEAVY, J. DUNLEAVY, G. EATON, F. EDINGER, A. EGAN-FIELDS, S. ELLIOTT,

19No. 31560-6-III (consolidatedwith No. 31559-2-III) Burtv. Dep 't of Corrections Appendix

D. ELLISON, C. EMERICK, W. END, T. ENTROP, K. ERB, R. ERBENICH, B. ERICKSON, E. ERICKSON, ED. ESCAPULE, ER. ESCAPULE, L. ESTES, M. ESTES, D. EVANS, P. FAIRLEY, R. FARROW, T. FAUVER, D. FEDDERSON, C. FERRIS, R. FIElDS, A. FIGUEROA, JO. FISCHER, JU. FISCHER,D. FLEENOR, S. FLEENOR, A. FLARES, K. FORBES, K FORSS, R. FORSS, M. FORSTER, B. FRAIRE, B. FRANKLIN, H. FREER, C. FRENCH, M. FRENCH, S. FRERICHS, N. FROST, J. FRY, T. GABEL, D. GAINES, R. GAINES, S. GAINES, V. GAINES, L. GALLAGHER, K. GALLEHER, F. GALLOWAY, D. GANNAWAY, E. GARCIA, T. GARCIA, B. GARNER, H. GARRISON, M. GARZA, V. GASAWAY, J. GASCON, L. GERBER, R. GIBSON, D. GIES, T. GIES, C. GILLESPIE, D. GLEASON, P. GLEASON, A. GONZALEZ, M. GONZALEZ, B. GOODWIN, R. GOODWIN, S. GOUCHER, D. GONDE, F. GOULD, O. GOULD, T. GOULD, B. GRAHAM, C. GRAY, C. GRIMES, K. GRINDROD, T. GRINDSTAFF, M. GROGAN, 1. GUZMAN, M. HAGER, S. HAHN, W. HALE, S. HALING, B. HALL, S. HALL, 1. HALLSIED, C. HAMADA, J. HAMADA, W. HAMBY, B. HAMILTON, C. HAMM, M. HANAN, J. HANES, R. HANSEN, B. HANSON, W. HANSON, T. HARMON, S. HARMON, S. HARRIS, 1. HARTFORD, B. HATLEY, C. HAVENS, T. HEAD, R. HEILBRUN, W. HEIMANN, L. HEINKEL, E. HEIRD, R. HENDERSON, B. HENDRIX, B. HENRY, L. HERBST, M. HILL, G. HILL, R. HILLIS, M. HINOJOSA, K HOBBS, H. HOBSON, C. HOERNER, G. HOFFMAN, D. HOLBROOK, D. HOLEVINSKI, T. HOLLINGSWORTH, J. HOPPEN, D. HOPPEN, R. HOSSACK, M. HOUSE, C. HOWARD, L. HOWERTER, R. HOWERTON, S. HNBBS, A. HUBBARD, R. HUBBARD, R. HUEIT, D. HUMPHRYS, J. HNRLEY, S. HUSSEY, D. HUTCHERSON, A. HUTCHINS, S. HUTCHINS, M. HUWE, F. IVEY, G. ISITT, S. ISITT, D. JACKSON, K. JACKSON, R. JACKSON, S. JACOBSON, R. JACOBSON,

### J. JAMES, M. JAMES, G. JAMIESON, L. JANTZ, D. JANSEN, R. JANZER, N. JAWIS, G. JENNINGS, C. JENSEN, R. JENSEN, C. JERNEE, K. JERGENSEN, A. JESBERGER, K. JESSEE, F. JIMENEZ, C. JOHNSON, L. JOHNSON, M. JOHNSON, C. JONES, L. JONES, R. JONES, C. JORDAN, E. JORDAN, K. JORDAN, S. KARLSON, S. KEARSLEY, B. KELLY, S. KELSEY, K. KIESZ, D. KIMBALL, J. KING, M. KING, P. KING, S. KING, B. KINMAN, M. KLUNDT, R. KNIGHT, M. KNIGHTON, C. KNOEFLER, K. KNOWLTON, L. KOHLER, D. KOZACHENKO, R. KRAUSE, M. KNCZA, A. KUNZ, K. LACKEY, M. LADUKE, C. LANE, M. LANE, J. LANG, R. LAUTERBERG, B. LECHNER, A. LEE, H. LEE, A. LENZ, J. LEONARD, P. LEONETTI, D. LEPIANE, K. LEROUE, S. LESIENR, L. LEWIS, D. LIEN, R. LINDSAY, L. LINDSEY, J. LINSEY, L. LITERAL, M. LITCHFIELD, R. LOCATI, W. E. LOEVENSTEIN II, G. LOGAN, W. LOGAN, C. LOGSDON, C. LOIACONOBROWNELL, M. LOIACONO, A. LOMELI, L. LOPER, S. LOWDER, K. LOYD, G. LUGO, T. LUGO, D. LNNDGREN, L. LUNDGREN, S. LYONS, B. MAGUIRE, L. MAGUIRE, E. MANTEL, W. MARCUM, M. MARION, S. MARTIN, J. MASON, P. MATHISON, E. MCALVEY, D. MCCAW, J. MCDONALD, P. MCKEOWN, D. MCKINNEY, 20No. 31560-6-II1 (consolidated with No. 31559-2-III) Burt

### v. Dep 't of Corrections Appendix

C. MCLAUGHLIN, J. MCMANN, B. NCNEIL, E. MEDUTIS, M. MELE, M. MELTON, T. MELTON, R. MENDIOLA, E. MENDOZA JR., L. MERRILL, K. MESPLIE, C. MEYER, J. MEYERJR., MI. MEYER, G. MEZA JR., R. MICHAEL, J. MILES, A. MILLER, C. MILLER, J. MILLER, K. MILLER, S. MILLER, C. MILLS, S. MINGS, T. MINK, K. MITCHELL, M. MITCHELL, B. MOLLER, A. MONROE, A. MONTOYA, R. MOON, B. MOORE, P. MOORE, R. J. MORGAN, D. MORRIS, D. MORRISETTE, F. MORRISETTE, 

### T. MORRISON, R. MOSS, M. MOSS, J. MOULTON, C. MUNDEU, J. MUNDEN, J. MUNGER, S. MURPHY, D. MURRAY, L. NEILL, DA. NEISSL, DE. NEISSL, E. NEISSL, H. NEISSL, J. NEISSL, M. NEISSL, P. NEISWONGER, J. NELSON, J. NETTLES, S. NETTLES, J. NENSCHWANDER, B. NEWELL, E. NEWTON, R. NEWTON, K. NICHOLS, S. NEISNER, CAR. NOAL, CAT. NOAL, S. NOIROT, J. NORED, D. O'BRIEN, D. OCANAZ, L. OCANAZ, P. O'CONNOR, C. ODELL, C. OLIVARES-GARCIA, E. OLIVER, S. OLIVER, R. ORNELAS, D. OVERTURF, M. OWENS, P. OWENS, M. PALMER, J. PALOMO, J. PARTLOW, R. PARR, R. PARTRIDGE, B. PATZKOWSKI, T. PAOLINO, G. PARENT, L. PAUL, T. PAUL, CH. PEASE, C. PEASE, M. PECK, D. PEDDICORD, J. PEDDICORD, G. PENROSE, H. PENROSE, R. E. PERCIFIElD, P. PERRIN, J. PHILLIPS, G. PIERCE, R. PIERCE, J. PIES, R. PIVER, A. PONTI, K. PONTI, M. PONTI, S. PONTI, W. PONTI, K. POTTER, C. POTTS, K. POWERS, R. POYNTER, L. PRICE, E. PRYOR, L. PRYOR, N. PUCKETT, R. QUEEN, 1. QUINTAL, K. QUINTAL, A. RALLS, E. RAILS, 

### M. RAMIREZ, G. RANDOLPH, S. RANDOLPH, T. REDDEN, C. REDDISH, M. REDDISH, B. RENWICK, C. REISWIG, T. REISWIG, M. REYES, M. REYNOLDS, B. RHODES, G. RICHARDSON, J. RICHMOND, K. RIGGIN, P. RIMA, A. RIPPY, A. ROBERSOU, D. ROBERTS, L. ROBERTS, D. ROBERTSON, G. ROBINSON, K. ROBINSON, 1. ROBLES, J. ROCK, C. ROCKWELL, K. RODGERS, T. ROE, R. ROEDER, R. ROGERS, V. ROGERS, F. ROMINE,J. ROOP, J. RORDEN, L. ROSE, R. ROSENDAHL, RE. ROYSE, RO. ROYSE, JAR. RUIZ, JOS. RUIZ, M. SALTER, S. SAMITORE, R. SAMPSON, G. SAMS,J. SAMS, R. SANCHEZ, B. SANDAU, L. SEAMAHORN, C. SCHMIDT, F. SCHMITS, J. SCHUETZE,T. SCOTT, H. SCUDDERIII, S. SEGRAVES, A. SEWEN, R. SERVEN, B. SHAFFER, C. SHAMPINE, T. SHANNON, R. SHANNON, J. SHELTON, R. SHUMATE, S. SINCLAIR, A. SILLER, S. SILLER, D. SKIDGELL, R. SLACK, A. SLUSSER, P. SMALL, A. SMITH, C. SMITH, D. SMITH, G. SMITH,J. SMITH, K. SMITH, M. SMITH, T. SMITH, W. SMITH, D. SNELL, H. SNIVELY, DA. SNYDER, 1. SNYDER, M. SOUTHERN, R. SPENCE, S. SPENCER, R. SPURGEON, K. STEINBACK, L. STEINBACK, J. STEINLOSKI, C. STERLIN, S. STODOLA, L. STOKES, S. STOKES, G. STUART, R. STONE, J. STRANG, M. STRANG, K. SUCKOW, S. SUCKOW, S. SULLIVAN, J. SUMERLIN, C. SUMPTER, S. SUNDBERG,D. SURRY, R. SWANSON, D. SWENSEN, V. SWORD, S. TAYLOR,
21No. 31560-6-II1 (consolidatedwithNo. 31559-2-III) Burt

### v. Dep 't of Corrections Appendix

P. TESKE, B. THOMPSON, D. A. THOMPSON, D. G. THOMPSON, D. S. THOMPSON, C. THORPE, TILLOTSON, G. TIMMS, 

### J. TORRESCANO, B. TREADWAY, D. TREADWELL, C. TREMBLEY, M. TURLEY, B. TURNER, M. UNCK, C. UNGERECHT, 1. UTTECHT, E. VILLARO, D. WAGNER, M. WAGNER, N. WALDO, D. WALKER, 1. WALKER, K. WALKER, V. WALKER, M. WALL, C. WALLINGFORD, P. WALLINGFORD,D. WALTMAN, B. WARD, R. WARD, R. WARDLAW, F. WARNEKA, S. WARREN, T. WARREN, D. WATKO, F. WATKO, 

### L. WATSON, W. WATSON, 1. WATTS, L. WATTS, C. WEAVER, D. WEAVER, L. WEAVER, R. WEAVER, S. WEAVER, T. WEAVER, L. WEBER, S. WEBER, M WEISPFENNING, D. WELLS, D. WEST, A. WESTERBUR, M. WHALEN, A. WHEELER, B. WHEELER, W. WHIPPLE, B. WHITE, M. WHITE, C. WHITMORE, K. WICKHAM, E. WILBUR, R. WILCOX, 1. WILLIAMS, M. WILLIAMS, R. WILLIAMS, W. WILLIAMS, A. WILSON, C. WILSON, K. WILSON, T. WILSON, K. WINGER, P. WINTERS, W. WOOD, D. WOOTON, S. WORDEN, L. YOBBAGY-FINN, 

### L. YOUNG, M. ZARAGOZA, R. ZARAGOZA, D. ZARNDT, K. ZEHNER, W. ZIER, D. ZIPF, T. ZOHNER, M. ZUERCHER, W. ZUECHER, R. ZUVER

22