prevailed on two claims that were not appealed. In January 2016, the trial court
conducted a bench trial on the remaining four claims. On a CR 41(b)(3) motion,
the court dismissed the March 4, 2014 claim. At the close of trial, the court found
that the City did not violate the PRA with respect to the September 28, 2012 and
March 17, 2014 requests.
Rufin received a judgment for $1,688 for one PRA violation. She
requested $168,038.96 in fees and costs, but was awarded $33,229.12. The
court declined to shift attorney fees or costs under CR 68,finding that CR 68
does not apply in PRA cases. The court reasoned that
4
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 74825-4-1/5
it would undermine the statutory purpose of the PRA to limit Plaintiffs
recovery of costs and attorney fees. The purpose of the PRA is to
protect the sovereignty of the people of this State. RCW 42.56.020.
To assure that the public interest will be fully protected, the PRA is a
strongly worded mandate for broad disclosure of public records and
should be liberally construed to promote full access to public records,
and its exemptions are to be narrowly construed. . . . Application of
CR 68 in this context would have a chilling effect on this public policy.
CP at 1763.
Rufin appeals the dismissal of three of her PRA claims arising from the
September 28, 2012, March 4, 2014, and March 17, 2014 requests. The City
cross-appeals the trial court's finding that CR 68 does not apply to the PRA.
DISCUSSION
September 28, 2012 Request
Rufin argues that the search in response to her September 28, 2012
request was not reasonable because it did not follow an "obvious lead" to search
Maehara's e-mail account.