Opinion ID: 2587439
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: superior court order (january 14, 2000)

Text: The public records portion of the public disclosure act, RCW 42.17.250.-348... requires all state and local agencies to disclose any public record upon request, unless the record falls within certain very specific exemptions. [30] The purpose of the Public Records Act is to preserve the most central tenets of representative government, namely, the sovereignty of the people and the accountability to the people of public officials and institutions. [31] Under the Superior Court Civil Rules the trial court exercises a broad discretion to manage the discovery process in a fashion that will implement the goal of full disclosure of relevant information and at the same time afford the participants protection against harmful side effects. [32] Protection orders under the Civil Rules are meant to protect the health and integrity of the discovery process, as much as to protect the parties who participate in it. [33] Petitioner maintains she has access to public records from Respondent DSHS under both Civil Rules of discovery, CR 26, and the Public Records Act because the Public Records Act does not contain a specific prohibition against disclosure of litigation-related public records. [34] RCW 42.17.310 indicates public records which are exempt under the Public Records Act. RCW 42.17.310(1)(j) provides: Certain personal and other records exempt. (1) The following are exempt from public inspection and copying: . . . . (j) Records which are relevant to a controversy [35] to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts. (Emphasis added.) Although RCW 42.17.310(1)(j) is awkwardly worded, it is not, however, ambiguous. A plain language interpretation of it is that records relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party are exempt from public inspection and copying under the Public Records Act if those records would not be available to another party under superior court rules of pretrial discovery. The corollary to this is the records would not be exempt if they are available to another party under superior court rules of pretrial discovery. In a plurality decision this court in Limstrom v. Ladenburg held that the pretrial discovery rules referred to in RCW 42.17.310(1)(j) are those set forth in the civil rules for superior court, CR 26. [36] Civil Rule 26(a) provides methods of discovery and indicates that parties may obtain discovery by depositions upon oral examination, or written questions; written interrogatories; production of documents or things or permission to enter upon land or other property, for inspection and other purposes; physical and mental examinations; and requests for admission. [37] Civil Rule 26(b) provides the scope and limits of discovery, indicating in part, [p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action. [38] The civil rules apply to all lawsuits of a civil nature. [39] Petitioner filed this civil action. She may seek public records from Respondent DSHS under the pretrial rules of discovery but is not precluded from seeking those records under the Public Records Act. [40] Petitioner claims that if the Legislature intended to provide an exemption for public records available under discovery it would have provided a specific exemption under the Act. Respondent DSHS asks this court to follow the suggestion in Nast v. Michels that the decision on access to public records rests in the sound discretion of the trial court under common law unless it is specifically governed by the Public Disclosure Act, RCW 42.17.020. [41] In that case this court held the Public Disclosure Act did not provide access to court case files even though the Act did not provide an exemption prohibiting their disclosure. [42] The court reasoned the common law provided access to court case files; the Public Disclosure Act (which includes the Public Records Act) did not specifically include courts or court case files in its definitions; and that to interpret the Act to allow access to court case files would undo developed case law protecting privacy and government interests. [43] Nast does not aid the position argued by Respondent. CR 1 provides that the Civil Rules for Superior Court govern the procedure in the superior court in all suits of a civil nature whether cognizable as cases at law or in equity with the exceptions stated in rule 81. They shall be construed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action. CR 5(i) provides: Discovery Material Not to Be Filed; Exceptions. Depositions upon oral examinations, depositions upon written questions, interrogatories and responses thereto, requests for production or inspection and responses thereto, requests for admission and responses thereto, and other discovery requests and responses thereto shall not be filed with the court unless for use in a proceeding or trial or on order of the court. CR 26 contains general provisions governing discovery and provides, in part: (a) Discovery Methods. Parties may obtain discovery by one or more of the following methods: depositions upon oral examination or written questions; written interrogatories; production of documents or things or permission to enter upon land or other property, for inspection and other purposes; physical and mental examinations; and requests for admission. . . . . CR 34 provides for production of documents for inspection and other purposes. Depositions and discovery in civil cases are governed by CR 26-37 which, under CR 26(j) incorporates chapter 4.24 RCW relating to access to discovery materials. The Public Records Act makes no direct reference to access to public records by a litigant, but only indirectly refers to it in RCW 42.17.310(1)(j). That subsection refers to rules of pretrial discovery ... in the superior court which this court has determined are the Civil Rules for Superior Court. Those rules relate to any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved .... Petitioner O'Connor claims this court's statement in Limstrom v. Ladenburg that the public records act was not intended to be used as a tool for pretrial discovery did not recognize or create a statutory exemption under the Public Disclosure Act for litigation-related materials. [44] Actually the quotation is from a footnote. The case it cites is also from a footnote. The statement does not purport to be a ruling by this court. [45] Respondent maintains the Civil Rules are incorporated into the Public Records Act exemptions by reference to other statute in RCW 42.17.260(1). [46] Petitioner to the contrary asserts the Civil Rules are not incorporated into the statute because the rules are not statutes as the word is generally construed. [47] RCW 42.17.260(1) provides: Each agency, in accordance with the published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, RCW 42.17.310, 42.17.315, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records.... [48] The Civil Rules were adopted under RCW 2.04.190, which acknowledges the power of the Supreme Court to promulgate all rules for court pleading, practice and procedure, the rules superseding any laws in conflict. [49] We conclude that the Civil Rules are incorporated into the other statute provision of RCW 42.17.260(1), but that does not dictate the conclusion urged by Respondent. [50] We nevertheless conclude that public records from a public agency available to litigants against the agency by discovery under the Civil Rules are not exempt from the Public Records Act under RCW 42.17.310(1)(j). The Civil Rules do not conflict with the Public Records Act. The rules provide that records that are not relevant and privileged are exempt from discovery. [51] The trial court nevertheless was in error in concluding that Respondent DSHS may deny the direct public records request by Petitioner and that Petitioner, as a litigant against DSHS, must seek access to the records under the Civil Rules for discovery.