8
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 74825-4-1/9
183 Wn. App. 644, 653, 334 P.3d 94(2014). Whether an agency responded
diligently to a PRA request is a fact-specific inquiry decided on a case by case
basis. Id.
Rufin asked for various City Light payroll records in her March 4, 2014
request. She had made another PRA request the day before. On March 7, Walter
acknowledged the March 4 request and estimated that he would provide the
records within 20 days. He contacted Human Resources on March 21,
requesting that payroll start pulling records to fulfill the request. Human
Resources provided the records on April 8. Walter completed review and gave
them to Rufin 65 days after her request.
Rufin contends that Walter's dilatory request for payroll records violated
the PRA. But during this time, Walter was also working on two other requests by
Rufin. Walter testified that he put the request "in the queue along with any other
requests that I was receiving at the time." Verbatim Report of Proceedings(VRP)
at 128. He testified that at the time, he was also working on a number of other
requests, one of which was very complex. Under these circumstances, producing
records within 65 days is not unreasonable. While Rufin is correct that the trial
court should have included the period before Walter's self-imposed deadline in its
diligence analysis, we review de novo whether there is prima facie evidence of a
violation and conclude that the trial court did not err in this regard. The City
responded diligently to Rufin's March 4, 2014 request.
9
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 74825-4-1/10
March 17, 2014 Request