Opinion ID: 2514056
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Guillen

Text: On July 5, 1996, Ignacio Guillen's wife, Clementina Guillen-Alejandre, was killed and her passengers injured in an automobile collision at the intersection of 168th Street East and B Street East, in Pierce County. Months earlier, on May 11, 1995, based on traffic and accident reports and data in its possession, Pierce County had identified this intersection as especially hazardous and applied for federal hazard elimination funds under 23 U.S.C. § 152. That application was denied. The County then reapplied on April 3, 1996, and on July 26, 1996, three weeks after Guillen-Alejandre's fatal accident, the application was granted. A letter dated August 16, 1996, was sent on Guillen's behalf to the County's Risk Management Department, requesting materials and data relating to the intersection's accident history. The county prosecuting attorney's office denied the request in a letter dated September 9, 1996, claiming the history was privileged under 23 U.S.C. § 409 and RCW 42.17.310(j). In a letter dated October 28, 1996, counsel for Guillen clarified his request: I want to make the record clear that we are not seeking any reports that were specifically written for developing any safety construction improvement project at the intersection at issue. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 93. However, on behalf of our clients, we are seeking a copy of all documents that record the accident history of the intersection that may have been used in the preparation of any such reports. In other words, we are simply seeking information as to when accidents have occurred at the intersection for the last ten years. This would include any documents that record (1) the date of any such accidents, (2) the parties involved at each such accident, (3) the date of each such accident [sic], (4) fatalities, if any, at each such accident, (5) the identification of all known accidents [sic] at each such accident, (6) copies of photographs taken at each such accident, (7) the configuration of the intersection (what traffic signs existed) at the time of each such intersection [sic], and (8) documents recording traffic counts at the intersection. Obviously, the documents we are requesting would not contain any opinions by Pierce County representatives as to the safety of the intersection. Instead, we are seeking documents pertaining to facts. Id. at 93-94. In a letter dated November 12, 1996, the County reiterated its refusal to release any of the requested materials or factual data relating to the intersection other than a simple traffic count, claiming that these were privileged under 23 U.S.C. § 409, since they represented data the County has compiled for the sole purpose of identifying[,] evaluating or planning the safety enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions or for developing highway safety construction improvement projects pursuant to section 152. CP at 96. A. Public Disclosure Request: On December 9, 1996, Guillen challenged that denial of access in Pierce County Superior Court in a complaint filed under RCW 42.17.340 of the public disclosure act (PDA). The County moved for summary judgment under 23 U.S.C. § 409 and RCW 42.17.310(j). Guillen filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The trial court denied the County's motion, but granted Guillen's cross-motion, ordering the County to pay attorney fees under RCW 42.17.340(4) and to disclose the following materials: 1. Motor vehicle traffic accidents by locationCounty of Pierceprepared by Records Section, Washington State Patrol [WSP], 1/90-6/30/96. . . . 10. Collision diagram dated 1/5/89 prepared by Georgia Fischer. 11. Collision diagram dated 7/18/88 prepared by Georgia Fischer. . . . 13. Police Traffic Collision Reports and Motor Vehicle Reports from 1/1/90 prepared by [various] law enforcement agencies. . . . 15. Draft letter to Barbara Gelman from Frederick L. Anderson with note to file signed by Jim Ellison on 3/6/89. CP at 20-21. [1] The County sought appellate review of the trial court's PDA ruling. [2] B. Civil Discovery Request: While that appeal was still pending, Guillen filed a separate tort action in Pierce County Superior Court, claiming that the County's failure to install proper traffic controls at the intersection was a negligent proximate cause of his wife's death. When the County responded to his interrogatories by invoking 23 U.S.C. § 409 and RCW 42.17.310(j), Guillen moved to compel, whereupon the County moved for a protective order. The court granted Guillen's motion, denied the County's, and ordered pretrial discovery of the following materials and data: 1. The identity of all employees, agents, or officials of Defendant Pierce County who have knowledge of automobile accidents taking place at the intersection at issue for the time period January 1, 1990 through July 4, 1996; 2. The identity of all persons within Pierce County's knowledge who have been involved in automobile accidents at the intersection at issue for the time period of January 1, 1990 through July 5, 1996; 3. The identity of all Pierce County deputy sheriffs who patrolled the intersection at issue during the time frame of January 1, 1990 through July 4, 1996; 4. The date, identity of all persons involved, and the identity of all fatalities for each automobile accident occurring at the intersection at issue for the time period of January 1, 1990 through July 5, 1996; 5. A copy of all photographs[] Pierce County has in its possession, control or custody of accidents involving at least one automobile at the intersection at issue from January 1, 1990 through July 6, 1996; 6. A copy of all written statements by witnesses to accidents at the intersection at issue that occurred during the time period of January 1, 1990 through July 6, 1996; and 7. A copy of all accident reports sent to Pierce County from individuals who had been involved in automobile accidents at the intersection at issue from January 1, 1990 through July 4, 1996. Amended Order Granting Pls.' Mot. to Compel Disc. at 1-2. On December 7, 1998, the County successfully moved the Court of Appeals for discretionary review and for consolidation of the case with Guillen's appeal of the PDA ruling. The Court of Appeals issued its decision on August 6, 1999, holding that the 23 U.S.C. § 409 privilege covered only one of the disputed items. Accident reports were not covered, the court ruled, since Guillen carefully requested reports in the hands of the sheriff or other law enforcement agencies, not reports or data `collected or compiled' by the Public Works Department `pursuant to' Section 152. Guillen v. Pierce County, 96 Wash.App. 862, 873, 982 P.2d 123 (1999). In the final footnote of its opinion, though, the court raised a more fundamental question regarding the constitutionality of § 409 as amended in 1995: It is arguable that Congress lacks the authority to dictate rules of discovery and rules of admissibility for use in state court. In particular, it is at least arguable that Congress lacks the authority to tell this state, or any state, that it shall not disclose or admit, in state court litigation, reports ... or data compiled or collected by a state agency (e.g., Pierce County's Public Works Department). Throughout this opinion, we have assumed that section 409 is constitutional, because neither party has raised or briefed that question. Guillen, 96 Wash.App. at 875 n. 26, 982 P.2d 123. We granted review on January 5, 2000.