Opinion ID: 2354141
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: Whether a cause of action should be recognized or freestanding penalties awardable for an inadequate search

Text: ¶ 106 The majority mentions the disagreement about whether there is or should be an independent cause of action for an inadequate search, but does not resolve the matter. The majority addresses the question whether an inadequate search alone supports a freestanding daily penalty when an agency conducts an inadequate search followed by an adequate search yielding no responsive documents, but specifically leaves the question for another day. The majority then holds that the agency here conducted an inadequate search and refused to produce responsive records and, therefore, Neighborhood Alliance is a prevailing party entitled to costs and reasonable attorney fees. ¶ 107 The majority should expressly reject the idea that an inadequate search could form the basis for an independent cause of action under the PRA or support freestanding penalties. First, in circumstances where an adequate search would have yielded nonexempt, responsive records, the failure to conduct an adequate search is a failure to properly respond. A failure to properly respond to a public records request is treated as a denial, Soter, 162 Wash.2d at 750, 174 P.3d 60, which is actionable. ¶ 108 However, a failure to conduct an adequate search cannot form the basis for an action unless nonexempt responsive records exist at the time the public records request was made. If no responsive records exist, then a court cannot order their production, and the requester can never be a prevailing party entitled to costs, attorney fees, or penalties under the PRA. RCW 42.56.550(4) provides for an award of costs and attorney fees to [a]ny person who prevails against an agency in a PRA action. Similarly, the statute provides for an award of penalties within the court's discretion to such person. Such person refers back to [a]ny person who prevails against an agency and therefore penalties are also limited to prevailing parties. As the majority accurately points out, we have held `prevailing' relates to the legal question of whether the records should have been disclosed on request. Majority at 131 (emphasis added) (quoting Spokane Research, 155 Wash.2d at 103-04, 117 P.3d 1117). ¶ 109 But if no responsive document exists, there is no document that could or should have been disclosed on request. Therefore, there is no prevailing party when, following an inadequate search, a party subsequently obtains no documents because no responsive documents exist. Our decision in Spokane Research forecloses costs and reasonable attorney fees in such circumstances because the party cannot be a prevailing party, and without prevailing party status, there is no statutory entitlement to costs and attorney's fees. Finally, a court cannot order production of records that do not exist. ¶ 110 The import of this, first, is that there should be no question that freestanding daily penalties are not awardable when an agency conducts an inadequate search and ultimately no responsive documents are ever produced/found. No penalties can be awarded at all absent prevailing party status. Second, no independent cause of action for inadequacy of a search should exist because there is no possible remedy or relief to be afforded since, if no responsive records exist, there is no possibility that any records can be ordered produced, and no possible attorney fees, costs, or penalties. ¶ 111 Thus, an inadequate search, in and of itself, cannot be the basis of an independent cause of action under the PRA. Rather, as explained, an inadequate search can only be the basis for an action if responsive records exist but are not produced, and in this event, of course, the improper response is treated as a denial, which is actionable. ¶ 112 Rather than leave these questions lurking in the background of any PRA request, I would resolve them. Agencies should not fear being sued under the PRA based solely on whether a search is adequate, or fear having penalties imposed solely based on inadequacy of a search. Only a denial or its equivalent is actionable, and unless an inadequate search results in a failure to produce responsive documents, it is not equivalent to a denial.