Opinion ID: 987107
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: PRA Redaction Requirement

Text: SHA hearing decisions are public records subject to the PRA's disclosure requirements. The hearing decisions relate to the provision of public housing, and SHA (a local agency) retains the documents in individual tenant files. Thus, the hearing decisions are public records. See RCW 42.56.010(3). SHA is correct that the hearing decisions are exempt from blanket production insofar as they include 19 Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8 [p]ersonal information in ... files maintained for ... welfare recipients. RCW 42.56.230(1). The parties do not dispute that the grievance hearing decisions do contain such information. But the PRA requires production of otherwise exempted records insofar as exempt information can be deleted. See RCW 42.56.070(1), .210(1). SHA argues that the PRA' s redaction requirement simply does not apply to records containing personal information and maintained in welfare-recipient files. SHA reasons that such information is not subject to redaction because it is exempted categorically, unlike, for example, [p]ersonal information in files maintained for [public] employees, which is exempted to the extent that disclosure would violate their right to privacy. RCW 42.56.230(3). SHA's argument is thus that the PRA's redaction requirement, which applies only to information the disclosure of which would violate personal privacy or vital govermnental interests, RCW 42.56.210(1), does not apply to any categorical exemptions and applies only to conditional exemptions (i.e., exemptions that explicitly identify relevant privacy rights or governmental interests). SHA's interpretation of the PRA reflects a failure to appreciate the overall framework of the PRA, and SHA is clearly wrong, for numerous reasons. First, SHA ignores that all exemptions, including categorical exemptions, are intended to protect personal privacy and govermnental interests. See Limstrom, 136 Wn.2d at 607; RCW 42.56.210(2). 20 Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8 Second, SHA ignores that the redaction provision in the PRA explicitly lists only two exemptions that are not subject to the PRA' s redaction requirement, and the welfare recipient exemption is not on that list. RCW 42.56.210(1). Third, the two exemptions listed as not being subject to the redaction requirement are themselves categorical, and explicitly removing those provisions from the scope of the redaction requirement would have been superfluous if SHA's interpretation were correct. Fourth, we already have held that the PRA' s cmmnand to redact information that would violate personal privacy or governmental interests simply means that an agency must redact to overcome any and all relevant exemptions, insofar as possible. See Hearst, 90 Wn.2d at 132-33; PAWS II, 125 Wn.2d at 261. Requiring anything more or different would be too complicated, unworkable, and time-consuming for agencies operating under the PRA. Insofar as redaction can render all exemptions inapplicable, the PRA requires disclosure. Fifth, we already have applied the redaction requirement to numerous categorical exemptions. See Sanders, 169 Wn.2d at 858; Hearst, 90 Wn.2d at 132; see also Prison Legal News, Inc. v. Dep 't ofCorr., 154 Wn.2d 628, 645, 115 P.3d 316 (2005). In fact, perhaps most importantly, we already have explained that the redaction requirement applies to the very exemption provision at issue in this case. See Oliver, 94 Wn.2d at 567. 21 Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8 Sixth, ifSHA's interpretation were correct, only a small number ofthe PRA's numerous exemptions (that is, only conditional exemptions) would be subject to the redaction requirement, contrary to the overriding purpose of the PRA and the legislature's admonition that the PRA shall be liberally construed and it exemptions narrowly construed ... .'' RCW 42.56.030. Seventh, SHA provides no explanation of why the legislature would want to exempt absolutely from disclosure any records initially containing exempt personal information-even if redaction could render the exemption inapplicable. SHA's reading makes no sense, particularly when considering the wide range of categorical exemptions in the PRA, some of which are quite limited in scope. For example, RCW 42.56.350(1) exempts certain federal social security number[s] ... maintained in the files of the department of health, and under SHA's intepretation, any record containing such a social security number would be absolutely exempted from production, notwithstanding the fact that the Social Security number could simply be redacted. If the legislature actually had been interested in protecting the entire records in question, presumably it would have said so. SHA's suggested approach to exemption and redaction is untenable. If redaction sufficiently protects privacy and governmental interests-that is, if redaction can render all exemptions inapplicable-disclosure is required. Thus, SHA's unredacted grievance hearing decisions are not absolutely exempt from production and remain subject to the PRA's redaction requirement. 22 Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8