providing an exemption log at all. We disagree. It is unnecessary to provide an
exemption log repeating the same explanation thousands oftimes for the same
type of document. Island County's succinct and informative letter efficiently
fulfilled the "brief explanation" requirement.
White contends both counties' responses should be deemed inadequate
and vague because they did not specifically respond to the seven categories of
ballot images that he requested. But each county identified the same
exemptions for all ballots withheld. It would have been pointless to repeat the
same explanation for each of the seven categories within the universe of all
ballots.
14
No. 72028-7-1/15
White contends Skagit County should be penalized for failing to respond
to his request for "the original metadata and Properties of the electronic or digital
files requested." White did not clarify this request when asked. "If the requestor
fails to clarify the request, the agency .. . need not respond to it." RCW
42.56.520.
White contends that a request for metadata need not be clarified because
the term is well defined in O'Neill v. City of Shoreline, 170 Wn.2d 138, 143,147,
240 P.3d 1149 (2010). He argues that the County was feigning ignorance about
metadata in order to avoid the duty to search for it. In the circumstances of this
case, we disagree. It was not unreasonable for the County to ask White to
explain how or what part of metadata associated with the electronic or digital files
could be a public record, given the County's position that the electronic or digital
files themselves were exempt as ballots. As the trial court correctly concluded,