while also fielding Rufin's March 4 request. It also found that to fully satisfy her
request, the City was required to find records in storage and to conduct additional
inquiries through the Human Resources Department.2 It is true that the records
were produced after Rufin's trial, and that the City was aware of her trial date.
But a "delayed response by the agency, especially in circumstances making time
of the essence" is an aggravating factor in the penalty phase, after a violation of
the PRA is established. Yousoufian v. Office of Ron Sims, 168 Wn.2d 444, 467,
229 P.3d 735 (2010). The trial court did not err in concluding that the City's
response to the March 17, 2014 request was reasonable.
RCW 42.56.550(4) authorizes a penalty for the denial of the right to
inspect or copy a public record, but does not authorize a freestanding penalty for
lack of a five-day letter. Sanders v. State, 169 Wn.2d 827, 860, 240 P.3d 120
(2010). Therefore, there was no error as to imposition of a penalty. But we
nevertheless remand the case for recalculation of attorney fees, as Rufin is
entitled to fees for the March 17, 2014 request.
CR 68 Offer of Judgment
On cross appeal, the City argues that the trial court erred in ruling that CR
68 offers of judgment do not apply to the PRA.
A trial court's interpretation of a statute is a question of law that we review
de novo. In re Det. of Williams, 147 Wn.2d 476, 486, 55 P.3d 597(2002)