at least 49 City Light employees(March 4, 2014 request). She wrote that"TIME
IS OF THE ESSENCE, as these items may become important exhibits in a trial
scheduled for the end of March 2014." CP at 180. Walter acknowledged the
request, as well as another that Rufin had sent the day before, and estimated
that the first installment of records would be available in 20 days. Walter provided
the records on May 8.
On March 17, Rufin made another PRA request for various partial hiring
files (March 17, 2014 request). She again indicated that time was of the essence.
Walter did not send a five-day letter acknowledging the request and estimating a
time for production. But he provided the first installment of records on May 30,
2014, and completed the request on July 30, 2014.
3
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 74825-4-1/4
Meanwhile, at trial, Rufin did not have the benefit of the documents she
requested on March 4, 2014 and March 17, 2014. She also did not have the
forwarded e-mail responsive to her September 28, 2012 request. The City
prevailed at trial.
In November 2014, Rufin filed a claim alleging six violations of the PRA. In
discovery, RUfin requested e-mails bearing her name that may exist among
public disclosure officers. The City produced the forwarded e-mail. It was located
in Maehara's e-mail account, which was not searched for the September 28,
2012 request.
In June 2015, the City made Rufin a CR 68 offer of judgment for $40,000
plus reasonable attorney fees for her PRA claims. At that point, Rufin had
incurred only $12,966.11 in fees and costs. She did not accept the offer of
judgment. The City moved for summary judgment on all six PRA claims and