In Andrews v. Washington State Patrol, No. 32288-2-III, 2014 WL 4627656 (Wash. Ct. App. Sept. 16, 2014), a case involving response times to public records requests, the Washington Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Washington State Patrol (WSP). It rejected the argument that an agency violates the Public Records Act (PRA) when it fails to comply with its own estimate of when it will be able to complete its response to a PRA request. The court instead endorsed a flexible approach, holding that an agency does not violate the PRA when the agency exceeds its estimated time for response as long as the agency responds to the public records request with reasonable thoroughness and diligence.

The lawsuit arose when John Andrews learned that the WSP was recording attorney-client telephone conversations. On March 8, 2012, Andrews submitted a public records request for the recorded conversations. On March 15, 2012, the WSP sent Andrews an initial response letter acknowledging his request and estimating that it would produce responsive records within 20 days. But the search for the records proved more complicated than the agency expected, and on April 11, 2012, the WSP informed Andrews that it would need to extend its estimated response time for another 20 days to May 1, 2012.

Andrews left telephone messages with the WSP asking about the delay, but the WSP never returned his calls. This oversight was due to the high volume of public records requests pending with the agency at the time. In a period of about two months, the WSP received approximately 2,300 public records requests and subpoenas for documents. The WSP did not produce the documents by May 1, 2012 or send a second extension letter. Andrews sued on May 3, 2012, less than two months after making his request.

In his lawsuit, Andrews alleged that the WSP "failed to produce records after its own time estimates" and had not "provided a reasonable estimate of time to produce the records [or] provided the fullest assistance." On May 9, 2012, after Andrews filed his lawsuit, the WSP sent a second extension letter, in which it estimated that it could produce the records by May 31, 2012. It explained that the delay was due to the sensitivity of the potentially confidential records and the fact that the search was more complex than the WSP had initially contemplated. The WSP ultimately produced the records within 90 days of receiving Andrews' request and 44 days after its original 20-day estimate.

Both Andrews and the WSP filed for summary judgment, with the parties' dispute turning on the scope of the WSP’s obligations under the PRA once the agency provided Andrews with an estimated response date. The WSP insisted that the PRA did not require an agency to produce public records by the agency's estimated response date. It was just that: an estimate. The WSP further argued that its meticulous search to identify responsive records justified extending its original estimate. It needed assistance by seven different employees to fulfill Andrews' request, and despite the complexity of the task it took less than 90 days to disclose the responsive documents.

Andrews, on the other hand, claimed that the WSP violated the PRA by unreasonably requesting multiple 20-day extensions for what he characterized as a limited records request, by missing two of its own deadlines and by failing to timely produce the requested records. He maintained that the WSP should have been bound by its time estimates. The trial court granted the WSP's motion for summary judgment, finding that the agency responded in a timely fashion and that its time estimates were reasonable. Andrews appealed.

On appeal, Andrews argued that the trial court erred because the undisputed facts showed that the WSP violated the PRA's "fullest assistance requirement when it failed to provide documents or otherwise respond with an extension by its established deadlines, and altogether refused to communicate with the requester." The WSP responded that it was not bound by its estimated response dates, arguing that the PRA does not provide a cause of action for an agency's "inadvertent oversight in neglecting to send out another extension letter or responding to phone calls."

The Washington Court of Appeals (Division III) agreed with the WSP. It held that the PRA does not require an agency to strictly comply with the agency's estimated production dates. In fact, the statute expressly gives an agency additional time to respond to a request based upon the need to "locate and assemble the information requested" and when the circumstances of a request have changed. The statute does not envision a finding of a PRA violation whenever timelines are missed. Rather, the purpose of the PRA is for agencies to respond with reasonable thoroughness and diligence to public records requests. In this case, the complex nature of Andrews' request and the search for responsive records justified the WSP's extensions of its original estimate.

Andrews, the latest of a number of PRA decisions that have been issued by the Washington courts this year, offers agencies valuable guidance related to estimated response dates and the importance of a thorough search for responsive records. When a public records request is lengthy, complex or challenging, it is important that an agency locate and assemble the requested records in as diligent a manner as possible. In Andrews, the court of appeals emphasized a comprehensive search over speed. Had the WSP failed to produce the records at issue in a relatively short time period or to conduct a diligent search, the court might not have overlooked the agency's lack of communication with the requester and its delays in providing the requested records. Remember, when a search or production of records becomes more difficult than originally anticipated, always communicate with the requester about the delay and revise your estimated completion date. Good communication in the first instance may forestall a lawsuit. Also, consider providing the records to the requester in installments.

© 2014 Perkins Coie LLP