Rufin argues that the trial court erred in concluding that the City
responded to her March 17, 2014 request in a reasonable amount of time
because she did not get documents before her trial. She also points out that
RCW 42.56.520 requires a response from the agency within five days, and the
City did not provide such a five-day response. The City contends that Rufin
waived the five-day response argument. But we find that Rufin briefed the issue
sufficiently to allow the City the opportunity to respond.
An agency must respond promptly to a public records request.
Within five business days of receiving a public record request,
an agency ... must respond by either (1) providing the record;
(2) providing an internet address and link on the agency's
web site to the specific records requested...;(3)
acknowledging that the agency ... has received the request
and providing a reasonable estimate of the time the agency ...
will require to respond to the request; or (4) denying the
public record request."
RCW 42.56.520. The trial court found, and substantial evidence supports, that
the City did not comply with this provision because it did not provide records,
deny the request, or acknowledge the request with a time estimate within five
days. Given this finding of fact, the trial court's conclusion of no PRA violation
does not flow. The City's failure to provide a response under RCW 42.56.520
violates the PRA.
In spite of this violation, the record supports the trial court's conclusion
that the City produced the documents within a reasonable amount of time. The
trial court found that the City provided the records 74 days after the request,
10
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 74825-4-1/11