In the latest installment of a series of cases involving the nonprofit organization Freedom Foundation, the Department of Social and Health Services (“DSHS”) secured itself a win in the Washington Court of Appeals, Division II. Among other findings, the court upheld the trial court’s conclusion that DSHS did not violate the Public Records Act (“PRA”) when it first produced the requested records to the SEIU Training Partnership—a third party DSHS determined was likely to be “affected by the request.” Freedom Found. v. Wash. Dep’t of Soc. and Health Servs.
In an unpublished decision, the Washington Court of Appeals held that an attorney need not appear as counsel of record in a Public Records Act (“PRA”) action for legal services to be compensable, as long as the services were reasonably incurred in litigating a matter on which the PRA plaintiff prevailed. The court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding the plaintiffs only a fraction of the requested penalties for withholding of records. Strand v. Spokane County.
In State v. Evergreen Freedom Foundation, the Washington Supreme Court holds independent expenditure reporting requirements in Washington’s Fair Campaign Practices Act apply to “expenditures [made] prior to signature gathering, regardless of when they are gathered, but only if the measure is actually filed with an election official.” There, Evergreen Freedom Foundation created sample ordinances and local ballot propositions to advance its policies before city councils. Using the forms, local proponents submitted proposed measures to election officers in the cities of Sequim, Chelan and Shelton, along with supporting signatures. None of the cities passed the measures as ordinances or placed them on the ballot. The proponents sued, the Foundation’s attorneys represented them, and they lost. But that did not end the matter. The Washington Attorney General received a citizens’ complaint alleging the Foundation failed to report as independent expenditures the value of the legal services it provided. After investigation, the Attorney General brought this enforcement action.
In the most recent two of a string of cases involving branches of the Service Employees International Union and nonprofit organization Freedom Foundation, each party emerged with one victory and one loss. First, in Freedom Foundation v. SEIU Healthcare Northwest Training Partnership, Division I of the Court of Appeals concluded that the Training Partnership was not the functional equivalent of a public entity under Washington’s Public Records Act (PRA), Chapter 42.56 RCW. The Training Partnership is a nonprofit organization formed by SEIU 775, which is the exclusive bargaining representative of individual providers of in-home care service providers, as well as three private in-home service provider employers. The partnership provides training that in-home service providers are required to obtain under state law.
Lyft Inc. and Rasier LLC (collectively, “Lyft”) filed suit under Washington’s Public Records Act, ch. 42.56 RCW (“PRA”), seeking to enjoin the City of Seattle from releasing quarterly zip code reports Lyft submits to the City pursuant to local ordinance. Lyft asserted that the reports are protected from public disclosure because they are trade secrets under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, ch. 19.108 RCW (“UTSA”). The superior court entered a permanent injunction preventing release of the zip code reports, and the Washington Supreme Court accepted direct review of the court’s decision.
In a 5-4 decision, the Washington Supreme Court reversed the order granting injunctive relief. First, the Court determined that, while the evidence was mixed and the question was not beyond debate, substantial evidence supported the superior court’s findings that the zip code reports were trade secrets within the meaning of the UTSA.
Article II, Section 9 of the Montana state constitution protects the right to examine documents of public agencies. In Nelson v. City of Billings, the Montana Supreme Court held the state constitution did not require disclosure of attorney-client communications or attorney work product.
Article II, Section 9 provides, “No person shall be deprived of the right to examine documents of all public bodies or agencies . . . except in cases in which the demand of individual privacy clearly exceeds the merits of public disclosure.” Kevin Nelson claimed that because the only express exemption to this constitutional provision was “individual privacy,” attorney-client and work product documents were not exempt from disclosure.
Local Open Government Blog covers the latest in open government across the Pacific Northwest, including the Public Records Act, the Open Public Meetings Act, public disclosure, campaign finance and the Freedom of Information Act.