Opinion ID: 2376955
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Brief Explanation Requirement and Remedy

Text: ¶ 17 Justice Sanders argues that AGO violated the PRA because its response to his records request (the EDI) did not provide a brief explanation of how the claimed exemptions applied to the records withheld. The State argued in the trial court that it had explained the claimed exemptions by identifying each withheld document's author, recipient, date of creation, and broad subject matter along with its specification of the exemption. See CP at 1069-70 (using an example from the EDI to illustrate). The trial court disagreed. CP at 1717-18. It construed the PRA to require an agency claiming an exemption to `include a statement of the specific exemption authorizing the withholding of the record (or part) and a brief explanation of how the exemption applies to the record withheld. ' CP at 1717 (quoting RCW 42.56.210(3) [8] (emphasis added)). The EDI was devoid of any explanation, and so violated the brief explanation requirement. CP at 1718. ¶ 18 The trial court's interpretation of the statute is correct: an agency withholding or redacting any record must specify the exemption and give a brief explanation of how the exemption applies to the document. RCW 42.56.210(3). [9] The State's argument that the EDI explains the application of each claimed exemption is untenable, which may explain why the State has not renewed it on appeal. The identifying information about a given document does not explain, for example, why it is work product under the PRA's controversy exemption. See CP at 187-224 (claiming the controversy exemption for numerous records without specifying details such as the controversy to which each record is relevant). Allowing the mere identification of a document and the claimed exemption to count as a brief explanation would render the brief-explanation clause superfluous. ¶ 19 Furthermore, we have consistently enforced the PRA's disclosure requirements to advance its policy of public access. See Progressive Animal Welfare Soc. v. Univ. of Wash., 125 Wash.2d 243, 269-71, 884 P.2d 592 (1994) ( PAWS II ) (declaring silent withholding illegal and noting that an agency's compliance with the Public Records Act is only as reliable as the weakest link in the chain); Rental Hous. Ass'n v. City of Des Moines, 165 Wash.2d 525, 540, 199 P.3d 393 (2009) (relying on PAWS II to conclude that failure to require an indication of whether there is a valid basis for a claimed exemption for an individual record would defeat[] the very purpose of the PRA). Claimed exemptions cannot be vetted for validity if they are unexplained. Thus, AGO's failure to explain its claimed exemptions violated the PRA. ¶ 20 The remedy for such a violation is a more difficult issue. Justice Sanders argues that the remedy is waiver or estoppel. See Sanders's Opening Br. at 36-41; CP at 1718-19. In other words, by failing to adequately explain a claimed exemption, AGO either waived the right to claim the exemption or is estopped from arguing an explanation other than one found in the EDI. Since the EDI contained no explanation, AGO would be estopped from offering any explanation. Id. The State's position is that the only remedy for the brief explanation violation is to compel the agency to explain. Br. of Resp't at 48-49. This is because an agency can meet the explanation requirement in court submissions. See id. (citing PAWS II ). The trial court adopted neither position. It concluded that an exempt public record does not lose its exemption because of an inadequate response to a request. CP at 1718. Rather, the PRA gives the requester the right to sue and authorizes the imposition of penalties against an agency for wrongfully withholding the record. Id. The trial court therefore held that the remedy for a brief explanation violation is consideration when awarding costs, attorney fees, and penalties. CP at 1719. ¶ 21 We have already rejected the waiver or estoppel argument that Justice Sanders advances. In PAWS II, the agency initially explained its claimed exemptions to the requester but then sought to argue different explanations during litigation. 125 Wash.2d at 253, 884 P.2d 592. We held that a court may consider an agency's new explanations, expressing concern that agencies' responses to PRA requests would be too slow if their initial responses were binding. Id. If Justice Sanders's view of the law were correct, the initial, incorrect explanation would have led to waiver or estoppel and the State would not have been able to argue new explanations in court. This is exactly the outcome we wished to avoid in PAWS II. ¶ 22 On the other hand, the State's interpretation contravenes the PRA's purpose. If the only remedy for a failure to explain is to sue to compel explanation, the agency has no incentive to explain its exemptions at the outset. This forces requesters to resort to litigation, while allowing the agency to escape sanction of any kind. Cf. Spokane Research & Defense Fund v. City of Spokane, 155 Wash.2d 89, 103-04, 117 P.3d 1117 (2005) (refusing to allow agencies to resist complying with the PRA until after a suit is filed without facing a penalty). ¶ 23 The trial court's conclusion reflects a fair middle ground under the PRA: the agency's failure to provide a brief explanation should be considered when awarding costs, fees, and penalties, but the agency is not foreclosed from offering a satisfactory explanation. Such an interpretation serves the PRA's policy of disclosure by providing incentives for the agency to explain its claimed exemptions, while avoiding the negative consequences warned of in PAWS II. Cf. Rental Hous. Ass'n, 165 Wash.2d at 540, 199 P.3d 393 (requiring a detailed privilege log based on similar considerations). ¶ 24 The interpretation also follows from the PRA's text. The PRA entitles a prevailing party in an action seeking the right to inspect or copy any public record or the right to receive a response to a public record request  to costs and reasonable attorney fees. RCW 42.56.550(4) [10] (emphasis added). The brief explanation requirement is one aspect of the response[s] referred to in this provision. See RCW 42.56.210(3) [11] ( Agency responses refusing, in whole or in part, inspection of any public record shall include . . . a brief explanation of how the exemption applies to the record withheld. (emphasis added)). ¶ 25 In addition, as discussed below in part 5, an agency's failure to explain its claimed exemptions is relevant to the agency's lack of strict compliance . . . with all the PRA procedural requirements, which may aggravate the penalty for wrongfully withholding public records. Yousoufian v. Office of Ron Sims, 168 Wash.2d 444, 467, 229 P.3d 735 (2010) ( Yousoufian II ). ¶ 26 In sum, AGO's failure to provide a brief explanation of its claimed exemptions violated the PRA. The remedy for the violation is consideration when awarding costs, fees, and penalties.