[T]he focus of the inquiry is not whether responsive documents do
in fact exist, but whether the search itself was adequate. The
adequacy of a search is judged by a standard of reasonableness,
that is, the search must be reasonably calculated to uncover all
relevant documents. What will be considered reasonable will
depend on the facts of each case. When examining the
circumstances of a case, then, the issue of whether the search
was reasonably calculated and therefore adequate is separate
from whether additional responsive documents exist but are
not found.
1 In their appellate briefs, the City and Rufin each argue that the other bore the burden of
proof at trial. But neither party clearly presented this issue to the trial court to rule on, and the trial
court did not make such a ruling. In addition, the appellant does not assign error to a decision on
the burden of proof. It does appear that the burden of proof is on the City in a trial for PRA
violations. RCW 42.56.550; Block, 189 Wn. App. at 270. It also appears that the trial court may
have placed the burden on Rufin. But, even if a trial court errs in its ruling on the burden of proof,
its judgment may be sustained if it is supported by the record. Curtiss v. Young Men's Christian
Ass'n of Lower Columbia Basin, 82 Wn.2d 455, 465, 511 P.2d 991 (1973). We conclude that to
the extent that the trial court did err in placing the burden on Rufin, the error is harmless. We
have reviewed all the evidence, and it clearly establishes that there were no PRA violations
except where indicated otherwise herein.
6
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 74825-4-1/7