Opinion ID: 2354141
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 16

Heading: Destruction of records

Text: ¶ 99 Because there seems to be an issue in this case regarding possible destruction of a hard drive that might have contained responsive records, I briefly comment on destruction of requested records. ¶ 100 The PRA recognizes that records may be destroyed by an agency in the ordinary course of operations. However, once records become subject to a public records request, the agency shall retain possession of the record, and may not destroy or erase the record until the request is resolved. RCW 42.56.100. An electronic version of a requested record is a public record that cannot lawfully be destroyed once it is requested under the PRA. O'Neill, 170 Wash.2d at 149, 240 P.3d 1149. Destruction of a requested record violates the PRA and can lead to imposition of penalties. ¶ 101 For example, in Yacobellis v. City of Bellingham, 55 Wash.App. 706, 780 P.2d 272 (1989), the city refused to produce requested records of raw data collected by the city, claiming that they did not have to be produced because they were reflected in a final report. The city destroyed the raw data records while the request was pending. The court concluded that no exemption applied, that the city's destruction of the records violated the PRA, and that the requester was entitled to attorney fees and penalties for each day he was denied the right to inspect the documents. ¶ 102 Similarly, under FOIA, generally an agency does not have a duty to retrieve or release documents that it legitimately disposed of prior to a FOIA request. Chambers v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 568 F.3d at 1004; McGehee, 697 F.2d at 1103 n. 33; see also SafeCard Servs., 926 F.2d at 1201; Piper v. Dep't of Justice, 222 Fed.Appx. 1, 1 (D.C.Cir. 2007) (unpublished). FOIA does not obligate agencies to create or retain documents; it only obligates them to provide access to those which it in fact has created and retained. Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 152, 100 S.Ct. 960, 63 L.Ed.2d 267 (1980). For example, in Lechliter v. Rumsfeld, 182 Fed.Appx. 113, 116 (3d Cir.2006) (unpublished), the agency's uncontradicted affidavit explained that old papers and folders were regularly purged, e-mail documents were regularly purged when time and attention allowed, and no documents were ever deliberately destroyed in response to the public records request at issue. The court found no improper withholding because the agency was not required to produce documents `if [it] is no longer in possession of the documents for a reason that is not itself suspect.' Id. (quoting SafeCard Servs., 926 F.2d at 1201). ¶ 103 However, an agency violates FOIA if it intentionally transfers or destroys a document after a FOIA request is made that includes the document. Chambers, 568 F.3d at 1004; Forsham v. Califano, 587 F.2d 1128, 1136 n. 19 (D.C.Cir.1978) (a government agency cannot circumvent FOIA by transferring physical possession of its records to a warehouse or like bailee), aff'd sub nom. Forsham v. Harris, 445 U.S. 169, 100 S.Ct. 977, 63 L.Ed.2d 293 (1980); see Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce, 34 F.Supp.2d 28, 41 (D.D.C.1998) (magistrate judge told to preside over discovery for the purpose of exploring the extent to which [the agency] ... illegally destroyed and discarded responsive information); Landmark Legal Found. v. E.P.A., 272 F.Supp.2d 59, 62 (D.D.C.2003) (referring to earlier litigation where the EPA was held in contempt and ordered to pay costs and fees caused by EPA's contumacious conduct, that is, destroying potentially responsive material contained on hard drives and email backup tapes). ¶ 104 If an agency no longer has a document for a reason that is not suspect, however, the agency does not have an obligation to take any further action to produce it, because only improper withholding violates FOIA. SafeCard Servs., 926 F.2d at 1201. ¶ 105 Under the circumstances in this case, it appears likely that the agency had an obligation to search in places other than the computer that replaced Ms. Knutson's old computer. However, the case should be remanded for the parties and the trial court to implement the legal standard adopted by the court in this case.