Opinion ID: 2376955
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Aggravator for Brief Explanation Violation

Text: ¶ 54 AGO failed to explain any of its claimed exemptions in the EDI. The trial court imposed penalties for the brief explanation violation as an aggravator for the penalty for wrongfully withholding records. The State argues that no aggravator for a brief explanation violation is permissible. In contrast, Justice Sanders treats the brief explanation violation as deserving of a freestanding penalty under the PRA, meaning that the penalty must be within the statutory range of $5-$100 per diem. ¶ 55 We hold that the trial court's view of the matter is correct. The PRA provision authorizing awards of costs, fees, and penalties reads: Any person who prevails against an agency in any action in the courts seeking the right to inspect or copy any public record or the right to receive a response to a public record request within a reasonable amount of time shall be awarded all costs, including reasonable attorney fees, incurred in connection with such legal action. In addition, it shall be within the discretion of the court to award such person an amount not less than five dollars and not to exceed one hundred dollars for each day that he or she was denied the right to inspect or copy said public record. RCW 42.56.550(4). [18] The first sentence entitles a prevailing party to costs and reasonable attorney fees for vindicating the right to inspect or copy or the right to receive a response, but the second sentence authorizes penalties only for denials of the right to inspect or copy. Id. ¶ 56 Because of this difference, the penalty section does not expressly authorize a free-standing penalty for the failure to provide a brief explanation. It is the response that is insufficient when the brief explanation is omitted. See RCW 42.56.210(3) [19] ( Agency responses refusing, in whole or in part, inspection of any public record shall include. . . a brief explanation of how the exemption applies to the record withheld. (emphasis added)). In contrast, the right to inspect or copy turns on whether the document is actually exempt from disclosure, not whether the response contained a brief explanation of the claimed exemptions. ¶ 57 Nevertheless, although the PRA does not expressly sanction a separate penalty for a brief explanation violation, the violation may aggravate the penalty for wrongfully withholding a record. [20] See RCW 42.56.550(4) [21] (allowing penalties for violation of the right to inspect or copy). One factor in setting the penalty for wrongful withholding is the agency's strict compliance with the PRA, or lack thereof. See Yousoufian II, 168 Wash.2d at 467, 229 P.3d 735. As discussed above in part 2, an agency violates the PRA when it fails to provide a brief explanation of how the claimed exemptions apply to the records withheld. This violation is relevant to the agency's lack of compliance with the PRA. Therefore, the failure to provide the brief explanation may act as an aggravating factor when assessing penalties for wrongfully withholding nonexempt documents. ¶ 58 This understanding of the penalty calculation answers Justice Sanders's contention that the amount of penalty for the brief explanation violation must be within the statutory range of $5-$100. Because the aggravator for a brief explanation violation is merely one factor in the calculation of penalties for wrongful withholding, it need not itself be within the statutory range. It is the total penalty for wrongful withholding that must fall within that range. ¶ 59 The trial court correctly treated the brief explanation violation as an aggravating factor in the penalty calculation for wrongfully withholding records.