Opinion ID: 2376601
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Records held outside the court

Text: ¶ 67 We next consider the Herald-Republic's request to the county for documents held outside the judicial branch. As noted earlier, the newspaper argued that while it could obtain the documents directly from the Yakima County Superior Court, we have nevertheless elected to focus our efforts on the County, as its duty to maintain and provide outside lawyers' billing records is explicitly recognized in RCW 42.56.904. [14] CP at 343 (emphasis omitted). ¶ 68 Relying on our decision in Nast, Sanchez argues that judicial records retain their character as judicial records regardless of where the records are held. We do not read Nast so broadly. In Nast we acknowledged that the definitions of agency and public record could be read to include the King County Department of Judicial Administration and court records, respectively. Id. at 305, 730 P.2d 54. However, we noted several considerations suggested that the judiciary and its case files are not within the realm of the public disclosure act (PDA), chapter 42.17 RCW, [15] including the fact that the common law provides access to court case files, the PDA did not expressly mention courts, and because to interpret the PDA to include court case files undoes all the developed law protecting privacy and governmental interests. Id. at 307, 730 P.2d 54. In contrast to court records, there is no common law right to access nonjudicial agency records and the agencies here clearly fall within the definition of agency in the act. See RCW 42.56.010(1) (defining agency). Moreover, in contrast to the PRA's silence regarding court records, RCW 42.56.904 specifically provides for production of the attorney invoices at issue here. ¶ 69 Sanchez also argues that because the records were created by the court or generated for use in court, the court has the inherent authority to control their records. He cites Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598, 98 S.Ct. 1306. Nixon involved a trial court's decision denying a media request to make copies of tape recordings introduced at a criminal trial. The recordings at issue were in the court's possession and the case turned on whether the press has a common law or constitutional right to make recordings of evidence presented in a criminal case. Nixon does not support Sanchez's premise that records sent to other county entities remain court records within the meaning of the PRA and our decision in Nast. ¶ 70 In his memorandum decision, Judge Cooper determined that the PRA had no application to the Herald-Republic's request because the records sought by the paper were court records. However, the trial court was silent as to the requested financial documents, if any, held by the Yakima County Auditor's Office and the Yakima County Board of Commissioners, presumably holding that these documents were covered by the sealing orders and were not covered by the PRA. This was incorrect. ¶ 71 After oral argument, this court requested copies of the orders sealing documents by Judge Lust. Based on our review, it does not appear that the orders expressly applied to those outside agencies. Absent a protective order or other instructions specifically limiting disclosure of judicial documents sent by the court to outside entities, we hold that such documents are no longer judicial documents and hence disclosure is governed by the PRA. ¶ 72 We recognize that the court's failure to adhere to the provisions of GR 15the double sealing and the lack of written findings justifying sealingcontributed to the county's predicament of not knowing to what extent the sealing orders covered documents held outside the court. Nevertheless, the burden is on the agency to make available for public inspection and copying all public records or identify a specific exemption and provide an explanation of how it applies to the individual agency record. RCW 42.56.070(1), .210(3); Rental Ass'n v. City of Des Moines, 165 Wash.2d 525, 199 P.3d 393 (2009) (construing RCW 42.56.210(3)). 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. RCW 42.56.550(1). Finally, and of particular significance here, RCW 42.56.904 requires the county to produce attorney invoices, if any, which are held outside the court, subject to the limitations of that provision. [16] ¶ 73 Here, the County answered the paper's request by stating that it was unclear whether the Yakima County Superior Court considered its order sealing the court records to include all related billing records held outside the court, and that it was concerned with the impact of the paper's request on vital governmental functions such as the ability of the defendants to have a fair trial, as well as attorney-client confidentiality. CP at 342. This response is insufficient. ¶ 74 The county's failure to comply with these requirements is a violation of the PRA.