Opinion ID: 2635516
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Does Nast Apply to the Requested Judicial Records

Text: ¶ 6 In Nast, an attorney challenged a new King County court rule that required one-day notice to access court case files, alleging it violated the PRA. [1] 107 Wash.2d at 301-02, 730 P.2d 54. This court held that the PRA did not apply to the case files, giving three reasons: (1) the common law already provided a common law right of access to the files, (2) the PRA did not provide for exceptions to public disclosure requirements developed in the common law, and (3) the PRA did not specifically include courts or court case files. Id. at 307, 730 P.2d 54. Two subsequent Court of Appeals decisions have interpreted Nast to hold that the judiciary and judicial records are not subject to the PRA. Spokane & E. Lawyer v. Tompkins, 136 Wash.App. 616, 621-22, 150 P.3d 158 (upholding denial of public records request for correspondence from county judges to the bar association regarding local lawyers), review denied, 162 Wash.2d 1004, 175 P.3d 1092 (2007); Beuhler v. Small, 115 Wash.App. 914, 918, 64 P.3d 78 (2003) (upholding denial of public records request for a computer file containing a judge's notes on prior sentences he had imposed). ¶ 7 Koenig argues that the Nast holding should be limited to court case files accessible through the common law, but this interpretation has no basis in the Nast opinion. In Nast, this court looked to the language in the PRA to determine whether the court case files were considered public records. 107 Wash.2d at 304-05, 730 P.2d 54. The PRA defines a `[p]ublic record' as a writing containing information relating to the conduct of government . . . [that is] prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency. RCW 42.56.010(2). `State agency' is defined as a state office, department, division, bureau, board, commission, or other state agency. RCW 42.56.010(1). `Local agency' is defined as a county, city, town, municipal corporation, quasi-municipal corporation, or special purpose district, or any office, department, division, bureau, board, commission, or agency thereof, or other local public agency. Id. ¶ 8 The records in Nast and the records at issue here clearly meet the first part of the PRA's definition of public records  both sets of records are writings that contain information relating to the conduct of government. The only question is whether the entity that created the records (here, the judiciary) is a state or local agency. The Nast court resolved this question, holding that the PRA definitions do not include either courts or case files. 107 Wash.2d at 306, 730 P.2d 54. Because the records met the other elements of the PRA's definition of public records, Nast necessarily held that the judiciary is not a state or local agency. We find it unreasonable to now twist this holding to sometimes include the courts in the definition of agency. Either the entity maintaining a record is an agency under the PRA or it is not. Under Nast, the courts are not included in the definition of agency, and thus, the PRA does not apply to the judiciary. As a result, the court records requested by Koenig are not subject to disclosure under the PRA.