Opinion ID: 2268910
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: A Public Records Case Can Be Decided On Affidavits Alone

Text: ¶ 24 The O'Neills argue that the Court of Appeals erred when it upheld the trial court's ruling that a PRA cause of action can be decided based on affidavits alone. The O'Neills claim that this ruling violated the PRA and due process. The PRA provides that [u]pon the motion of any person having been denied an opportunity to inspect or copy a public record by an agency, the superior court in the county in which a record is maintained may require the responsible agency to show cause why it has refused to allow inspection or copying of a specific public record or class of records. The burden of proof shall be on the agency to establish that refusal to permit public inspection and copying is in accordance with a statute that exempts or prohibits disclosure in whole or in part of specific information or records. RCW 42.56.550(1). ¶ 25 It also specifically states that [t]he court may conduct a hearing based solely on affidavits. RCW 42.56.550(3). Relevant WAC provisions discussing RCW 42.56.550 provide: The act provides a speedy remedy for a requestor to obtain a court hearing on whether the agency has violated [RCW 42.56.550].... The purpose of the quick judicial procedure is to allow requestors to expeditiously find out if they are entitled to obtain public records. To speed up the court process, a public records case may be decided merely on the motion of a requestor and solely on affidavits. WAC 44-14-08004(1) (footnote omitted). ¶ 26 We have also stated that the statute contemplates judicial review upon motion and affidavit. Were we to interfere with trial courts' litigation management decisions, we would make public disclosure act cases so expensive that citizens could not use the act for its intended purpose. Brouillet v. Cowles Publ'g Co., 114 Wash.2d 788, 801, 791 P.2d 526 (1990) (citation omitted). ¶ 27 The O'Neills specifically checked the box for a hearing without oral argument on their motion to show cause, even though they had the opportunity to ask for oral argument. At the hearing, the trial court reviewed the motions and affidavits and determined that all ... responsive records that exist have been provided to the plaintiffs. CP at 141. It therefore dismissed the O'Neills' PRA action. The trial court followed the procedure set out in RCW 42.56.550, deciding a motion based solely on affidavits. The statute was not violated. The O'Neills also cite no applicable authority that would suggest such a procedure violates due process. We hold that due process was satisfied.