Anne Block v. Spokane County ( 2019 )

FILED
MAY 9, 2019
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
ANNE BLOCK, )
) No. 35889-5-III
Appellant, )
)
v. )
)
SPOKANE COUNTY, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
Respondent. )
SIDDOWAY, J. — Anne Block appeals the summary judgment dismissal of her
complaint alleging violations by Spokane County (County) of the Public Records Act
(PRA), chapter 42.56 RCW. The issues she raises on appeal do not provide a basis for
reversing the trial court. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Sometime before August 2, 2017, Anne Block became aware that a juvenile
female had been charged with fourth degree assault for an incident that took place at the
Spokane Valley Mall several weeks earlier. Ms. Block was also reportedly informed,
evidently by the girl’s mother, that the incident leading to the girl’s arrest occurred after
the girl was chased through the mall by an adult. Ms. Block also learned that videotape
No. 35889-5-III
Block v. Spokane County
of the alleged assault might have been acquired by the Spokane County Sheriff’s Office
in the course of its investigation.
On August 2, Ms. Block sent electronic mail to a public disclosure assistant in the
sheriff’s office requesting “ALL videos that relate in any way” to the incident at the mall
involving the girl. Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 90. By letter dated August 7, the sheriff’s
office acknowledged her public record request and informed her the office had no
responsive records. The letter explained that a deputy sheriff had viewed video at the Old
Navy store in the mall, was unable to obtain a copy at that time, and had been told by
store staff that they would attempt to make a copy and provide it. The letter went on to
say:
Further, as these records involve a juvenile offense, if we did have a copy
of video associated with this incident, they would be considered exempt
under the following exemptions [in pertinent part]:
1. RCW 13.50.050(3): All records other than the official juvenile
court file are considered confidential
2. RCW 13.50.010: . . . who has been denied access to those
records by the agency may make a motion to the court for an order
authorizing that person to inspect the juvenile justice or care agency
records.
CP at 92.
Approximately a week later, the county’s public records office followed up with
two additional letters, directing Ms. Block’s attention to RCW 42.56.070, which provides
that agencies shall make public records available unless the record falls within an
2
No. 35889-5-III
Block v. Spokane County
exemption identified by RCW 42.56.070(6), chapter 42.56, “or other statute which
exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records.” CP at 94 (emphasis
omitted). The letters expressed the County’s position that RCW 13.50.050 is an “other
statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records.” CP at
96.
On September 11, Ms. Block, proceeding pro se, brought the action below,
alleging that the County had violated the PRA, including by providing an inadequate
response and failing to produce requested records.
On December 8, the County moved for summary judgment dismissing Ms.
Block’s complaint, contending that chapter 13.50 RCW, which deals with keeping and
releasing records by juvenile justice or care agencies, provides the exclusive means of
obtaining juvenile records. It argued that the chapter applied in the case of the videotape
copy, which the County conceded had since been received by the sheriff’s office in
connection with its investigation of the alleged assault. Among the legal authority the
County cited for support was this court’s decision in Wright v. State, 176 Wash. App. 585,
597, 309 P.3d 662 (2013). The County’s motion was scheduled to be heard on January
25, 2018.
Approximately six weeks later, on January 18, 2018, Ms. Block filed a declaration
seeking a continuance of the summary judgment hearing “for at least six months,” in
reliance on CR 56(f). CP at 68. She stated she had served a first set of interrogatories
3
No. 35889-5-III
Block v. Spokane County
and requests for production on the County on January 11, 2018. She did not provide a
copy of her written discovery to the court.
At the time set for the summary judgment hearing, the trial court questioned Ms.
Block about “what type of discovery . . . [she] propose[d,] and to what end?” Report of
Proceedings (RP) at 14. She responded that she had already served requests for
production and that she “probably” would take two depositions and would “probably fill
out some requests for admissions.” RP at 14-15.
The trial court concluded that the County was correct about chapter 13.50 RCW
being controlling, and “therefore, I can’t see that a 56(f) continuance is going to change
that in any degree.” RP at 23. It denied a continuance and granted summary judgment
dismissing the complaint. Ms. Block appeals.
ANALYSIS
Ms. Block identifies three issues for review, which we address in the order
presented.1
Issue One: Whether the plaintiff in a PRA action is entitled to the same
scope of discovery allowed other civil plaintiffs under Washington’s civil
discovery rules?
1
Ms. Block’s statement of the case does not include a reference to the record for
any factual statement, in violation of RAP 10.3(a)(5). The County asks us to disregard all
of her unsupported factual statements. Given the simplicity of the issues on appeal, we
exercise our discretion to overlook the rule violation.
4
No. 35889-5-III
Block v. Spokane County
Yes. As the County concedes, the plaintiff in a PRA action is entitled to the same
scope as discovery allowed other civil plaintiffs under the civil rules. E.g., Neigh. All. of
Spokane County v. Spokane County, 172 Wash. 2d 702, 708, 261 P.3d 119 (2011).
Issue Two: Whether the trial court erred when it refused to allow petitioner
the right to conduct discovery in a public records case involving a public
mall video recovered by Spokane County Sheriff’s Office from Spokane
Valley Mall security involving six adults and one minor?
The trial court did not refuse to allow Ms. Block to conduct discovery. It denied
her request to continue the hearing on the County’s summary judgment motion. When
the court then dismissed her complaint, she had no further right to discovery.
On filing her complaint, Ms. Block enjoyed the right to obtain discovery regarding
any matter, not privileged, which was relevant to the subject matter involved in the
pending action. CR 26(b)(1). She was entitled to serve written interrogatories and
requests for production. CR 33, 34. Under the applicable civil rules, the County had 30
days within which to answer, respond, or object. CR 33(a), 34(b)(3)(A). Ms. Block
states that she served the discovery on January 11, 2018, which would make the County’s
answers, responses, or objections due on February 12.
The County’s motion for summary judgment was scheduled for hearing on
January 25. If Ms. Block believed she would be unable to defend against the County’s
motion without more time for discovery, she needed to seek a continuance of the
summary judgment hearing under CR 56(f).
5
No. 35889-5-III
Block v. Spokane County
In seeking a continuance under CR 56(f), Ms. Block was derailing the hearing of a
motion that the County had properly noted and was entitled to have heard without
unreasonable delay. It is well settled that a party asking for a continuance of a properly-
noted summary judgment hearing must make a heightened showing of need for particular
discovery. The trial court may deny a CR 56(f) motion for continuance if:
“(1) the requesting party does not offer a good reason for the delay in
obtaining the desired evidence; (2) the requesting party does not state what
evidence would be established through the additional discovery; or (3) the
desired evidence will not raise a genuine issue of material fact.”
Farmer v. Davis, 161 Wash. App. 420, 430-31, 250 P.3d 138 (2011) (quoting Turner v.
Kohler, 54 Wash. App. 688, 693, 775 P.2d 474 (1989)). We review a trial court’s decision
to deny a continuance under CR 56(f) for abuse of discretion. Farmer, 161 Wash. App. at
431.
Ms. Block did not offer a reason for her delay in obtaining evidence. While she
described the type of discovery she hoped to complete or conduct, she did not identify
evidence to be established through the discovery that would create a genuine issue of
material fact. No abuse of discretion is shown.
Issue Three: In the event of conflict between the provisions of RCW 42.56
and any other act, which law governs—the PRA or any other law?
In construing statutes, we assume that the legislature does not intend to create
inconsistency, so we read statutes together, wherever possible, to achieve a harmonious
total statutory scheme that maintains the integrity of the respective statutes. See State ex
6
No. 35889-5-III
Block v. Spokane County
rel. Peninsula Neigh. Ass’n v. Dep’t of Transp., 142 Wash. 2d 328, 342, 12 P.3d 134 (2000).
At issue is whether there is any inconsistency, and if so, how the statutes are to be
harmonized.
We review summary judgment decisions de novo, viewing the evidence and all
reasonable inferences from the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving
party. Schaaf v. Highfield, 127 Wash. 2d 17, 21, 896 P.2d 665 (1995). Summary judgment
is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. CR 56(c).
In this case there is no inconsistency. The PRA contemplates that agencies will
possess some records that will be exempt from disclosure under its own provisions, or
under provisions of other statutes. It expressly provides that the obligation to make
records available for production does not apply if “the record falls within . . . [an]other
statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records.” RCW
42.56.070(1). In Wright, this court agreed with the defendant agency that “chapter 13.50
RCW prescribes the exclusive method for procuring juvenile records and, thus, separately
exempts . . . juvenile records from the PRA’s disclosure requirements and penalties.”
176 Wash. App. at 596.
As was discussed at the hearing on the County’s summary judgment motion, there
are procedures under chapter 13.50 RCW for requesting access to juvenile records. The
7
No. 35889-5-III
Block v. Spokane County
PRA does not apply. The order dismissing Ms. Block's complaint is affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.
WE CONCUR:
Pennell, A.CJ.
8