Opinion ID: 2634685
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Validity of Citizens' Request for All of the ETC's Documents

Text: The ETC contends that it is excused from producing the withheld documents because Citizens' request was overbroad. Citizens responds that it identified the records it sought as the CDs containing ETC's most important electronic communications. Citizens' Br. of Resp't/Cross Appellant at 42. While there is no official format for a valid PDA request, a party seeking documents must, at a minimum, provide notice that the request is made pursuant to the PDA and identify the documents with reasonable clarity to allow the agency to locate them. Wood v. Lowe, 102 Wash.App. 872, 878, 10 P.3d 494 (2000). The PDA requires agencies to produce only identifiable public records. RCW 42.17.270. If a request is too vague, an agency can request a clarification. RCW 42.17.320. Here, it cannot be said that the request was vague. Rather, the issue is whether the request was overbroad. In Bonamy, Division One of the Court of Appeals determined that a request `for generic policy guidelines on any type of investigation' was overbroad, rendering the request invalid. Bonamy, 92 Wash.App. at 411, 960 P.2d 447. The Bonamy holding was reaffirmed in Wood where Division Three of the Court of Appeals cited Bonamy for the proposition that a request `for general policy guidelines' [is] too broad. Wood, 102 Wash. App. at 879, 10 P.3d 494. We agree with the Court of Appeals that a government agency need not comply with an overbroad request. We reach that determination because if a requesting party could meet the PDA's requirement of identifying the desired documents by requesting all of an agency's documents, the identification requirement would be essentially meaningless. We will not interpret a statute in a manner that leads to an absurd result. State v. J.P., 149 Wash.2d 444, 450, 69 P.3d 318 (2003). The PDA was enacted to allow the public access to government documents once agencies are allowed the opportunity to determine if the requested documents are exempt from disclosure; it was not enacted to facilitate unbridled searches of an agency's property. We hold, therefore, as did the Court of Appeals in Wood, that a proper request under the PDA must identify with reasonable clarity those documents that are desired, and a party cannot satisfy this requirement by simply requesting all of an agency's documents. Citizens argues that it clearly identified the types of records it sought. Citizens' Br. of Resp't/Cross Appellant at 42. Citizens, however, fails to cite to the record to support this claim. Furthermore, Citizens has not suggested that it modified its September 26, 2002, request that sought all books, records, [and] documents of every kind. CCP at 15. The dissent translates this request into one for all of the public records in ETC's possession that were pertinent to the purpose for which they were sought. Dissent at 34 (emphasis added). Nothing in the record suggests that Citizens so limited its request. Instead, the record supports the ETC's contention that Citizens' request was for all of its records because the trial court ordered the ETC to disclose all of its public records. CCP at 206. Although the ETC informed Citizens that it was required to produce only `identifiable' records, Citizens never limited its request. CCP at 18. Citizens' request, in sum, could not have been any broader. [7] When a request is invalid, the agency is excused from complying with it. Bonamy, 92 Wash.App. at 412, 960 P.2d 447. The ETC was not obligated to comply with Citizens overbroad request, and the trial court erred in holding otherwise. We, therefore, find it unnecessary to consider the ETC's remaining arguments relating to the trial courts orders.