Opinion ID: 2358793
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Is a petition for a writ of mandamus the appropriate vehicle for the petitioners' contentions?

Text: ¶ 13 Though we retained the Times's petition for a writ of mandamus, the question remains whether a writ is the appropriate vehicle to address the petitioners' contentions. Rule of Appellate Procedure (RAP) 16.2 allows a party to file an original action in this court. But it is an extraordinary remedy. Walker v. Munro, 124 Wash.2d 402, 407, 879 P.2d 920 (1994). A party seeking a writ of mandamus must show that (1) the party subject to the writ has a clear duty to act; (2) the petitioner has no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; and (3) the petitioner is beneficially interested. RCW 7.16.160,.170. The duty to act must be ministerial in nature rather than discretionary. Brown v. Owen, 165 Wash.2d 706, 725, 206 P.3d 310 (2009). ¶ 14 Admittedly, this mandamus petition is somewhat unusual. However, we have encouraged use of the writ in circumstances such as these. In State v. Bianchi, 92 Wash.2d 91, 92, 593 P.2d 1330 (1979), The Bellingham Herald (The Herald) sought to intervene in a high-profile murder case in order to contest the trial court's order sealing the affidavit of probable cause determination, an order jointly sought by the prosecution and the defense. The trial court allowed The Herald to intervene. We reversed, holding that there is no rule, statute, or precedent in this state that would allow a third party to intervene in a criminal proceeding. Id. at 92, 593 P.2d 1330. We observed that the Herald has no direct interest in this determination to justify its intervention and the disruption of the pending criminal proceedings inherent in the intervention process. The Herald's remedy must therefore lie in a separate action for declaratory judgment, mandamus, or prohibition. Id. at 92-93, 593 P.2d 1330. ¶ 15 The Times points out that a declaratory judgment may not be available here, where the challenges to the production and unsealing of the documents in question occurred in criminal proceedings, not subject to the civil rules. See Civil Rule (CR) 57 (governing declaratory judgments); Reply on Pet. for Writ of Mandamus at 7 n. 3. Moreover, the Sheriff has not opposed disclosure of the requested records, so there is no dispute here between the parties seeking the information and the agency holding the information, as there has been in other cases where a media requester filed a declaratory judgment to resolve a records dispute. See, e.g., Yakima Herald Republic v. Yakima County, No. 82229-8 (Wash. argued Mar. 9, 2010); Newman v. King County, 133 Wash.2d 565, 947 P.2d 712 (1997). Direct appeal is also unavailable to the petitioners as a meaningful vehicle for review, both because of their inability to intervene in the criminal matters and because of the delay necessarily involved. See State v. Coe, 101 Wash.2d 364, 372 n. 2, 679 P.2d 353 (1984) (noting that such review may be delayed until most of the news value of [publishing the material] would have disappeared). ¶ 16 Since Bianchi we have affirmed the use of a writ of mandamus for a third party seeking the disclosure of information that potentially impacts a criminal trial. Federated Publ'ns, Inc. v. Kurtz, 94 Wash.2d 51, 615 P.2d 440 (1980); Seattle Times Co. v. Ishikawa, 97 Wash.2d 30, 640 P.2d 716 (1982). Mandamus by an original action in this court is a proper form of action for third party challenges to closure orders in criminal proceedings. Ishikawa, 97 Wash.2d at 35, 640 P.2d 716. Both Ishikawa and Kurtz involved courtroom closures and sealed court files. It is argued that the case before us is not entirely on point with Ishikawa and Kurtz because although some of the records at issue here were sealed under the June 9 order, and thus implicate article I, section 10 of the state constitution, the May 20 order withheld the records under the PRA, which does not directly implicate article I, section 10. Judges' Resp. to Pet. for Writ of Mandamus and Mot. for Accelerated Review at 6. ¶ 17 But this case is unusual in that the PRA issue was resolved in the context of the pending criminal cases, and the requesting parties could not intervene under Bianchi. We have consistently recognized the importance of the PRA in assuring open government. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created. This chapter [the PRA] shall be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed to promote this public policy and to assure that the public interest will be fully protected. RCW 42.56.030. It would undermine this policy if those prejudiced by an order prohibiting disclosure under the PRA had no timely means of seeking review. Bianchi and Ishikawa contemplate the procedural avenue the petitioners have followed in this case. [2] We will therefore review the petitioners' writ request on its merits.