7
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 74825-4-1/8
under Neighborhood Alliance. But Rufin failed to present any evidence that
Maehara remembered, or even saw, the e-mail in question. Maehara's account
was not a place reasonably likely to find e-mails by or between Johnson, Kern,
Carrasco, Haynes, and/or the Law Department.
To determine whether a search is reasonable, we focus not on whether a
document exists that is responsive to the request, but on the nature of the search
process. We conclude that the trial court did not err in finding that the City
conducted a reasonable search in response to the September 28, 2012 request.
March 4, 2014 Request
Rufin argues that the trial court erred in finding that City Light responded
to her March 4, 2014 request in reasonable time. She contends that the court
should have considered whether City Light acted diligently to meet their self-
imposed deadline, rather than looking only at its diligence after the deadline.
If the trial court dismisses a claim as a matter of law on a CR 41(b)(3)
motion to dismiss, we review de novo whether the plaintiff presented a prima
facie case, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. In re
Dependency of Schermer, 161 Wn.2d 927, 939-40, 169 P.3d 452 (2007). An
agency must respond to a request for public records within five business days by
providing the records, denying the request, or providing a reasonable timeframe
within which to respond to the request. RCW 42.56.520. An agency need not
meet its estimated time of responding to a PRA request so long as it responds
with "reasonable thoroughness and diligence." Andrews v. Wash. State Patrol,