Opinion ID: 2714946
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Abuse of Discretion Analysis

Text: The lead opinion correctly recites that we review the issuance of a redaction order for abuse of discretion. But, the lead opinion fails to faithfully apply this appropriate standard of review. Abuse of discretion occurs only when a trial court's decision is 'manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for 3 The Clerk stresses that it does not oppose Encarnacion's [and Farias's] motion on Ishikawarelated grounds, and it is disinclined to speak on behalf of either the general public or Encarnacion and Farias as to the balancing of their competing interests. Suppl. Br. of King County Dep't of Judicial Admin. at 4. The Clerk claims a substantial right in its duty to maintain the public record and contends the trial court's order forces it to engage in actions not allowed under GR 15. !d. at 4-5. Yet, the lead opinion's resolution of this case rests primarily on its discussion of the trial court's application of Ishikawa factors. See lead opinion at 8-9. It is safe to say then, that the lead opinion views the interest in dispute, and the injury at issue, as one that affects the public's open access to the administration of justice. The Clerk is not the proper party to vindicate this right. 3 Hundtojie v. Encarnacion, No. 88036-1 (Gonzalez, J., dissenting) untenable reasons.' Moeller v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash., 173 Wn.2d 264, 278, 267 P.3d 998 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Mayer v. Sto Indus., Inc., 156 Wn.2d 677,684, 132 P.3d 115 (2006)). A discretionary decision rests on 'untenable grounds' or is based on 'untenable reasons' if the trial court relies on unsupported facts or applies the wrong legal standard; the court's decision is 'manifestly unreasonable' if 'the court, despite applying the correct legal standard to the supported facts, adopts a view that no reasonable person would take.' Mayer, 156 Wn.2d at 684 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Rohrich, 149 Wn.2d 647, 654, 71 P.3d 638 (2003)). Instead of applying these standards, the justices of the lead opinion weigh the evidence and substitute their own judgment for that of the trial court. This is not abuse of discretion review. At best, the lead opinion engages the record de novo. The lead opinion finds that [i]n this case, the trial court abused its discretion because it applied an improper legal standard and because its findings are not supported in the record. Lead opinion at 8. But, to stay within the confines of abuse of discretion review, the supposed error in application must have either (1) been based on unsupported facts or (2) adopted a view that no reasonable person would take. The facts on which the trial judge relied were well supported by numerous declarations and ample testimony. The view taken by the trial court was entirely reasonable given these supported facts. 4 Hundtojie v. Encarnacion, No. 88036-1 (Gonzalez, J., dissenting) Simply put, the justices of the lead opinion would have preferred the lower court to interpret and weigh the facts differently and reach a different factual conclusion. In other words, the lead opinion has rebalanced the facts from our ivory tower to find the burden of redaction for a Clerk without standing is more compelling than the prospect ofhomelessness for a family with small children. Not only is this position callous but also, to get there, the lead opinion goes well beyond abuse of discretion review. The lead opinion states that [t]he privacy interest at stake in this case is not so compelling as to warrant redaction. Lead opinion at 8. Specifically, the lead opinion finds that the trial court broadly articulated the privacy interest as the 'need to obtain rental housing for [Encarnacion and Farias] and their three young children' when it should have been articulated as the interest in finding future rental housing in a desired location. !d. at 8-9 (alteration in original) (quoting Clerk's Papers (CP) at 729-30). This is an impermissible reconsideration of the facts. Apparently, the justices of the lead opinion do not find the supporting declaration, which established that Encarnacion and Farias could not find housing and reasonably feared homelessness because of an errant eviction record, sufficiently persuasive. It is not, however, this court's role to do that. It is worrisome that the justices of the lead opinion have, without the benefit of testimony or other attributes of trial, substituted their own interpretation of the facts and judgment of the evidence for those of the trial judge. Abuse of discretion is a 5 Hundtofie v. Encarnacion, No. 88036-1 (Gonzalez, J., dissenting) deferential standard of review. Without demonstrating that the trial court relied on unsupported facts or adopted a view that no reasonable person would take-which the lead opinion has failed to do-we must accept the lower court's factual conclusions.