Ramiro Valderrama v. City of Sammamish, Court of Appeals, Division I, No. 86195-6-I, December 16, 2024.
Division I of the Washington State Court of Appeals upheld the granting of summary judgment in favor of the City of Sammamish in a Public Records Act (“PRA,” Ch. 42.56 RCW) lawsuit that involved searching for and producing public records located on personal devices.
A former Sammamish City Councilmember sued the City, asserting the City failed to adequately search for and produce records of communications between Councilmembers and citizens, sent and/or received on Councilmember private/personal devices in violation of the PRA in response to multiple public records requests. The requests submitted focused on communications between Councilmembers, members of the public, and particular individuals, specifically requesting phone call logs/lists and communications on apps such as WhatsApp, Signal, Slack, Telegram, and WeChat.
The decision provides an extensive overview of the steps that the City took in responding to the requests, which ultimately involved hundreds of records and 43 Nissen affidavits from current and former City councilmembers and staff, some of which took a lengthy amount of time and effort to obtain. The Court found that the City’s efforts and communications to search for and produce records responsive to the public records requests over the course of 14 months were sufficient. Notably, the Court ruled the City was not required to sue a former Councilmember for their delay in submitting an affidavit or producing records, or to require a former Councilmember turn over their personal device for the City to conduct a search. The Court noted that the City repeatedly worked with the former Councilmember to search for potentially responsive records. In its Published Opinion, the Court echoed holdings from Nissen, stating that while the process involves trusting employees to search for and produce responsive records which may be imperfect, "the process strikes an acceptable balance between personal liberty and government accountability." (Slip opinion p. 14, citing Nissen at 884.)
This case serves as an important reminder of the applicable PRA requirements for personal device searches and what constitutes an adequate search for records. It also addresses instances where cities are dealing with records held by persons who are no longer on city staff or who may be difficult to obtain responses from when prompted for searches for records. In this instance, the City successfully obtained an order granting summary judgment in its favor from the trial court which Division I of the Court of Appeals upheld.
The Kenyon Disend team is honored to provide support and guidance for challenging public records issues such as those presented in this case.
