Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Ammons, Ruth E -(AGO Attorney) - (9) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10185739 Berg, John vs. DOC Washington State Court of Appeals, Division I 54104-8-I Date Cost Incurred 4/20/2005 Amount $9.20 Invoice # 3889 Vendor Note Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Washington State Printing of Brief Court of Appeals, Division I (Appellate Court) [Seattle] Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10239781 Stuhr, Clark L. vs. Department of Corrections, et al. Superior Court - Pierce 05-2-06926-6 10245884 Enquist, J.D. vs. Department of Corrections Superior Court - Pierce 05-2-08779-5 10283783 Martin, Samuel D. vs. DOC Superior Court - Spokane 05-2-05547-7 10292996 Gonzalez, Elias H. vs. Washington State Penitentiary Washington State Supreme Court 78513-9 Matter #: 10263420 Name: Wilson, Carl P. vs. Clarke, Harold, DOC & The State of Washington Forum: Superior Court - Thurston Cause #: 05-2-02098-6 Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10282449 Gonzalez, Elias H. vs. Washington State Penitentiary Superior Court - Walla Walla 05-2-01118-2 10285073 Enquist, J.D. vs. Department of Corrections Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 34252-9-II 10274315 Berg, John vs. DOC Washington State Supreme Court 78014-5 1 By: shaunnac Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01742 PRR-2011-00450 Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Berney, Peter W -(AGO Attorney) - (32) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10179650 Goodloe, William vs. DOC Superior Court - Grays Harbor 04-2-00262-8 10375286 Frost, Ray vs. DOC Superior Court - Walla Walla 08-2-00066-5 10210374 Sandoval, Lorenzo Superior Court - Thurston 04-2-00644-6 10436007 Carter, Germaine D. vs. DOC. Superior Court - Thurston 09-2-01295-1 Date Cost Incurred 6/29/2009 Amount $2.00 Invoice # A19-2A Vendor Note Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Superior Court copies of file Jason wanted Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10368854 Kenney, John David M.D. vs DOC et al Superior Court - Snohomish 07-2-09548-7 10416812 Chester, David K., II, vs. DOC., et. al. Washington State Supreme Court 82616-1 10413986 Chester, David K., II, vs. DOC., et. al. Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 27638-4-III 27639-2-III 10323469 Livingston, Michael B. vs. DOC Washington State Supreme Court 79608-4 Matter #: 10302309 Name: Moore, Douglas L. vs. Washington State Department of Corrections Forum: Superior Court - Thurston Cause #: 06-2-01040-7 Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01743 PRR-2011-00450 2 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Berney, Peter W -(AGO Attorney) - (32) Costs (2) Cost Type Court Reporters Date Cost Incurred 4/6/2007 Amount $88.20 Invoice # SM-304 Vendor Dixie Cattell & Associates (Business/ Association) Messing, Sonya (Public) Note E-transcript of Georg Court Reporters 6/30/2007 $87.50 3757 Transcript of 6/29 SJ Hearing Matter #: 10386108 Name: Parmelee, Allan, et al. vs. McKenna et al Forum: Superior Court - Thurston Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10235219 Stuhr, Clark L. vs. DOC, et al. Superior Court - Mason 05-2-00207-1 Matter #: 10221979 Name: Washington Federation of State Employees and "John Doe" vs. DOC Forum: Superior Court - Thurston Cause #: 05-2-00169-8 Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10378921 Brown, Kelly vs. Department of Corrections Superior Court - Thurston 08-2-00632-5 Date Cost Incurred 4/3/2008 Amount $7.00 Invoice # 8365 Vendor Note Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Superior Court copies of documents per AAG Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10390892 Harris, Stephen B. vs. DOC Superior Court - Walla Walla 08-2-00378-8 10046406 Gronquist, Derek E. vs. DOC, et al. Superior Court - Spokane 02-2-05518-9 Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01744 PRR-2011-00450 3 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Berney, Peter W -(AGO Attorney) - (32) Costs (4) Cost Type Court Transcripts Court Reporters Date Cost Incurred 3/16/2007 9/28/2007 Amount $75.00 $250.60 3740 Invoice # Vendor McMaster, Tammey L. (Public) Olympic Court Reporting Services -(Business/ Association) Olympic Court Reporting Services -(Business/ Association) Olympic Court Reporting Services -(Business/ Association) Note Deps of Schrum, Wilson-Kirby, Vaughan Deps of Klemme, Key, Archer Court Reporters 9/13/2007 $241.20 3724 Court Reporters 10/23/2007 $191.70 3764 Deps of Parry, Koester Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10186897 Thompson, Timothy vs. McKenzie, Jane Superior Court - Snohomish 04-2-08876-1 10018474 Prison Legal News, Inc. vs Washington DOC Superior Court - Thurston 01-2-00828-2 Date Cost Incurred 10/23/2006 Amount $1.00 Invoice # 7133 Vendor Superior Court Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Note Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10186650 Burns, Jason R. vs. DOC Superior Court - Grays Harbor 03-2-01561-6 10192197 Keyes, Daniel vs. DOC Superior Court - Spokane 04-2-02544-8 10206592 Livingston, Michael B. vs. DOC Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 32253-6-II Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01745 PRR-2011-00450 4 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Berney, Peter W -(AGO Attorney) - (32) Costs (3) Cost Type Legal Messenger Date Cost Incurred 1/19/2005 Amount $26.76 Invoice # 7193124 Vendor ABC Legal Services, Inc. (Business/ Association) [Everett] ABC Legal Services, Inc. (Business/ Association) [Seattle] Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II (Appellate Court) [Tacoma] Note Delivery of Brief to COA Legal Messenger 7/11/2005 $25.00 7297527 Delivery of Response to Mot to Modify Commissioner's Ruling Copy & Reproduction Costs 10/25/2005 $6.63 2151 Printing of Brief Matter #: 10333290 Name: Wgeishofski, Eugene vs. Washington State Department of Corrections Forum: Superior Court - Pierce Cause #: 07-2-05785-0 Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10380476 Wilder, Jack vs. DOC Superior Court - Thurston 08-2-00723-2 10201648 Buzzard, Ronald Jr. vs. Wilson-Kirby, Kay, et al. Superior Court - Thurston 04-2-01295-1 10381847 Chester, David K., II, vs. DOC., et. al. Superior Court - Spokane 08-2-01443-1 10233415 Enquist, J.D. vs. DOC, et al. Superior Court - Thurston 05-2-00276-7 10384999 Garner, Deldene vs. DOC., et al. Superior Court - Snohomish 08-2-04343-4 10284749 Enquist, J.D. vs. DOC, et al. Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 34273-1-II 5 By: shaunnac Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01746 PRR-2011-00450 Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Berney, Peter W -(AGO Attorney) - (32) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10249866 Sappenfield, Brandt vs. DOC Washington State Supreme Court 77285-1 10291424 Heyer, Karen vs. Purtzer, Brett A. Superior Court - Pierce 06-2-05630-8 10381838 Chester, David K., II, vs. DOC., et. al. Superior Court - Spokane 08-2-01403-1 10176526 Sappenfield, Brandt vs. DOC Washington State Court of Appeals, Division III 22735-9-III 10246856 Moylan, Chauncey W. vs. DOC, et al Superior Court - Snohomish 05-2-09905-2 Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01747 PRR-2011-00450 6 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Carr, Douglas W -(AGO Attorney) - (20) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10391587 Silva, Matthew G. vs DOC., et al. Superior Court - Thurston 08-2-01803-0 Date Cost Incurred 8/4/2008 6/24/2009 7/15/2009 Amount $15.00 $1.00 $6.50 Invoice # Vendor Superior Court Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Superior Court Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Superior Court Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Note Costs (3) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Copy & Reproduction Costs Copy & Reproduction Costs Matter #: 10518284 Name: Malicoat, William vs. State of Washington Department of Corrections Forum: Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II Cause #: 42293-0-II Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10398076 Kenney, John David , M.D. vs. DOC. et al. Superior Court - Snohomish 08-2-06924-7 Matter #: 10426769 Name: Addleman, Lincoln Lane Jr. vs. Department of Corrections Forum: Superior Court - King (RJC Kent) Cause #: 09-2-18096-2 KNT Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10393926 Ashby, Michael Eugene vs DOC et al Superior Court - Snohomish 08-2-04778-2 Date Cost Incurred 8/11/2008 Amount $6.00 Invoice # Vendor Superior Court Snohomish (Court) Note Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10491354 Miller, Sky vs. DOC Superior Court - Pierce 10-2-15019-1 Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01748 PRR-2011-00450 7 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Carr, Douglas W -(AGO Attorney) - (20) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10455084 Silva, Matthew G. vs DOC., et al. Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 40051-1-II 10476403 Silva, Matthew G. vs DOC., et al. Washington State Supreme Court 84669-3 10528126 Pecnik, Gertrude vs. DOC Superior Court - Thurston 11-2-02086-7 10435313 Addleman, Lincoln Lane Jr. Superior Court - King (RJC Kent) 09-2-20311-3 Matter #: 10503521 Name: Malicoat, William vs. State of Washington Department of Corrections Forum: Superior Court - Thurston Cause #: 11-2-00162-5 Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Date Cost Incurred 2/17/2011 Amount $20.50 Invoice # 9876 Vendor Note copy of case Matter #: 10505059 Name: Addleman, Lincoln Lane Jr. vs. Department of Corrections Forum: Washington State Court of Appeals, Division I Cause #: 66353-4-I Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10466585 Quinn, Daniel R. Superior Court - Thurston 10-2-00572-0 Date Cost Incurred 3/20/2010 Amount $0.50 Invoice # 9340 Vendor Thurston County Superior Court Clerk -(Court Clerk Office) Note sent to fiscal 4/8/10 Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10383625 McKee, Jeffrey R. vs. DOC, et. al. Superior Court - Thurston 08-2-00387-3 8 By: shaunnac Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01749 PRR-2011-00450 Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Carr, Douglas W -(AGO Attorney) - (20) Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Date Cost Incurred 8/27/2008 Amount $2.50 Invoice # Vendor Superior Court Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Note Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10389566 Fischer, Frederick J. vs. DOC Superior Court - Snohomish 08-2-05200-0 10445500 Fischer, Frederick J. vs. DOC Washington State Court of Appeals, Division I 64112-3-I 10462081 Fischer, Frederick J. vs. DOC Washington State Court of Appeals, Division I 64818-7-I Date Cost Incurred 7/20/2010 Amount $6.59 Invoice # 10213 Vendor Note Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Washington State Brief Printing Court of Appeals, Division I (Appellate Court) [Seattle] Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10508682 Fischer, Frederick J. vs. DOC Washington State Supreme Court 85814-4 10440884 Silva, Matthew G. vs DOC., et al. Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 39609-2-II 10413426 Mitchell, Kevin M. vs. DOC Superior Court - Grays Harbor 08-2-01718-1 Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01750 PRR-2011-00450 9 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Considine, Brian J -(AGO Attorney) - (4) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10394623 Silva, Matthew vs DOC et al Superior Court - Thurston 08-2-01600-2 Date Cost Incurred 7/21/2008 Amount $16.00 Invoice # Vendor Note Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Superior Court copies of new case Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10394404 Greenhalgh, Shawn D. vs. DOC et al Superior Court - Thurston 08-2-01041-1 Date Cost Incurred 7/31/2008 Amount $1.00 Invoice # Vendor Note Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Superior Court copies from file Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10512406 Greenhalgh, Shawn D. vs. DOC et al Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 42052-0-II Date Cost Incurred 9/29/2011 Amount $7.13 Invoice # 7094 Vendor Note Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Washington State "Printing Respondent's Brief" Court of Appeals, Division II (Appellate Court) [Tacoma] Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10393650 Gronquist, Derek vs. DOC Superior Court - Clallam 08-2-00758-1 Date Cost Incurred 12/18/2009 Amount $592.00 Invoice # Vendor Office of Risk Management (Business/ Association) Clallam County Superior Court Clerk -(Court Clerk Office) Clallam County Superior Court (Government Local WA) Note Costs (3) Cost Type Attorneys Fees Ex Parte Fee 1/3/2011 $30.00 Ex Parte Fee 9/28/2011 $30.00 motion to vacate Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01751 PRR-2011-00450 10 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Considine, Brian J -(AGO Attorney) - (4) Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01752 PRR-2011-00450 11 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Cook, Annette E -(AGO Attorney) - (1) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10151569 Young, Rick vs. Burt, P., et al. Superior Court - Clallam 03-2-00654-1 Date Cost Incurred 8/21/2003 Amount $8.00 Invoice # Vendor Note Fax filing fee from court Costs (1) Cost Type Filing Fee Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01753 PRR-2011-00450 12 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Croft, Allison M -(AGO Attorney) - (4) Matter #: 10308066 Name: City of Vancouver vs. State of Washington, Department of Corrections Forum: Superior Court - Clark Cause #: 06-2-02324-6 Costs (1) Cost Type Filing Fee Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Date Cost Incurred 9/11/2006 Amount $20.00 Invoice # Vendor Note Ex Parte Fee for signing of Order 10279713 Roy, Nicholas S. vs Wilson-Kirby, et al Superior Court - Spokane 05-2-05800-0 Date Cost Incurred 3/15/2000 Amount $450.00 Invoice # Vendor Note Costs (1) Cost Type Settlement Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10251952 Parmelee, Allan vs. Clarke, Harold Superior Court - Thurston 05-2-01317-3 Date Cost Incurred 4/21/2006 Amount $15,000.00 Invoice # Vendor Note Costs (1) Cost Type Settlement Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10284026 Roy, Nicholas S. vs. Barshaw, Victoria, et al. Superior Court - Thurston 05-2-02326-8 Date Cost Incurred 11/3/2006 11/2/2006 Amount $277.94 $20.00 Invoice # Vendor Note Costs (2) Cost Type Settlement Ex Parte Fee for Judge's signature on stipulation and motion to dismiss Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01754 PRR-2011-00450 13 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Di Vittorio, Sara J -(AGO Attorney) - (91) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10466830 Ashby, Michael Eugene vs. DOC Superior Court - Snohomish 10-2-02835-6 10318980 Parmelee, Allan vs. Mathieu, Laura et al. Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 35469-1-II Date Cost Incurred 10/28/2007 Amount $44.00 Invoice # 7777393 Vendor ABC Legal Services, Inc. (Business/ Association) [Seattle] Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II (Appellate Court) [Tacoma] Note Costs (2) Cost Type Legal Messenger Reproduction (copies) 11/13/2007 $16.32 3800 Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10308222 Parmelee, Allan vs. Porter, Carol Superior Court - Mason 06-2-00520-5 Date Cost Incurred 2/13/2007 Amount $174.30 Invoice # 161627 Vendor Note Costs (4) Cost Type Deposition Attorneys Fees and Costs Attorneys Fees and Costs Attorneys Fees and Costs Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 8/22/2007 8/22/2007 8/22/2007 $8,905.00 $367.60 $368.63 411 Capitol Pacific Deposition of Rita Wineinger Reporting, Inc.Olympia (Business/ Association) [Olympia] Kahrs, Michael C. (Attorney) Kahrs, Michael C. (Attorney) Kahrs, Michael C. (Attorney) - 10371736 Matthews, Brian David vs. DOC et al Superior Court - Grays Harbor 08-2-00029-6 Date Cost Incurred 4/11/2008 Amount $20.00 Invoice # Vendor Superior Court Grays Harbor (Court) 14 By: shaunnac Note Costs (1) Cost Type Ex Parte Fee Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01755 PRR-2011-00450 Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Di Vittorio, Sara J -(AGO Attorney) - (91) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10364987 Chester, David K., II, vs. DOC Superior Court - Spokane 07-2-05187-7 10399434 Reed, Charles V. vs DOC Washington State Supreme Court 82073-2 10474520 Harper, Timothy C. vs. DOC et al., Superior Court - Thurston 10-2-00750-1 Date Cost Incurred 6/7/2010 Amount $1.50 Invoice # 9452 Vendor Note Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Superior Court (invoice included other charges for Thurston -(Court) - another case - only $1.50 went to this [Thurston Cy] case) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10420892 Williams, Carlos John vs. DOC Superior Court - Snohomish 08-2-07800-9 Date Cost Incurred 4/22/2009 Amount $40.00 Invoice # Vendor Superior Court Snohomish (Court) Note Costs (1) Cost Type Ex Parte Fee Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10396491 Gitchel, Rodney vs. Department of Corrections Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 38029-3-II 10371042 Henry, Robert C. vs. DOC Superior Court - Pierce 07-2-06229-2 10450865 Quinn, Daniel R. v. Department of Corrections Superior Court - Thurston 09-2-02836-0 10491327 Hamilton, Jimi vs. DOC Superior Court - Snohomish 10-2-08660-7 Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01756 PRR-2011-00450 15 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Di Vittorio, Sara J -(AGO Attorney) - (91) Matter #: 10334856 Name: Ahlers, T., et al., vs. Washington State Department of Corrections Forum: Superior Court - Walla Walla Cause #: 07-2-00200-7 Matter #: 10301381 Name: Washington State Department of Corrections vs. Rick Anthony Young Forum: Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II Cause #: 34606-1-II Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10293482 Jackson, Robert vs. DOC Superior Court - Grays Harbor 06-2-00519-4 Matter #: 10301390 Name: Washington State Department of Corrections vs. Rick Anthony Young Forum: Washington State Supreme Court Cause #: 78530-9 Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10424219 Bronowski, Steven E. vs. DOC Superior Court - Thurston 09-2-00666-8 Date Cost Incurred 6/19/2009 Amount $20.00 Invoice # 8938 Vendor Superior Court Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Note Costs (1) Cost Type Ex Parte Fee Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10477506 Greenhalgh, Shawn D. v. DOC Superior Court - Snohomish 10-2-05982-1 10473330 Ashby, Michael Eugene vs. DOC Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 65392-0-I 10302469 Parmelee, Allan vs. Clarke, Harold Superior Court - Clallam 06-2-00502-6 Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01757 PRR-2011-00450 16 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Di Vittorio, Sara J -(AGO Attorney) - (91) Costs (1) Cost Type Costs Ordered Date Cost Incurred 6/11/2007 Amount $9.00 Invoice # Vendor Clallam County Superior Court Clerk -(Court Clerk Office) Note Matter #: 10471840 Name: Mitchell, Kevin Michael vs. Washington State Department of Corrections Forum: Washington State Supreme Court Cause #: 84553-1 Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10309134 Parmelee, Allan vs. Brunson, Karen, et al Superior Court - Clallam 06-2-00637-5 Date Cost Incurred 8/22/2006 11/14/2006 Amount $11.00 $13.00 Invoice # Vendor Superior Court Clallam -(Court) Superior Court Clallam -(Court) Note Costs (2) Cost Type Filing Fee Copy & Reproduction Costs Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10390914 Brooks, Jeffrey S. vs. DOC et al Superior Court - Walla Walla 08-2-00522-5 10389577 Gallagher, Douglas E. vs. DOC Superior Court - Snohomish 08-2-05132-1 10323876 Delong, Thomas et al vs. DOC et al Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 35561-2-II Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01758 PRR-2011-00450 17 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Di Vittorio, Sara J -(AGO Attorney) - (91) Costs (3) Cost Type Legal Messenger Date Cost Incurred 1/18/2008 Amount $44.00 Invoice # 7835007 Vendor Note Legal Messenger 1/16/2008 $44.00 7833811 Copy & Reproduction Costs 2/22/2008 $13.84 4045 ABC Legal Filing of Brief Services, Inc. (Business/ Association) [Olympia] ABC Legal Filing of Response to Motion Services, Inc. (Business/ Association) [Olympia] Washington State Brief printing Court of Appeals, Division II (Appellate Court) [Tacoma] Matter #: 10418315 Name: Mitchell, Kevin Michael vs. Washington State Department of Corrections Forum: Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II Cause #: 38767-1-II Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Date Cost Incurred 7/29/2009 Amount $4.98 Invoice # 5292 Vendor Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II (Appellate Court) [Tacoma] Note Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10439406 Chester, David K. vs. DOC Superior Court - Spokane 09-2-02850-2 Date Cost Incurred 3/16/2010 Amount $30.00 Invoice # Vendor Superior Court Spokane -(Court) Note Costs (1) Cost Type Ex Parte Fee Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10478489 Blick, Richard vs. DOC Superior Court - Snohomish 10-2-05983-9 10383617 McKee, Jeffrey R. vs. DOC, et. al. Superior Court - Grays Harbor 08-2-00443-7 Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01759 PRR-2011-00450 18 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Di Vittorio, Sara J -(AGO Attorney) - (91) Costs (3) Cost Type Ex Parte Fee Filing Fee Ex Parte Fee Date Cost Incurred 10/24/2008 1/16/2009 2/11/2009 Amount $20.00 $11.00 $20.00 Invoice # Vendor Superior Court Grays Harbor (Court) Superior Court Grays Harbor (Court) Superior Court Grays Harbor (Court) Note FAX filing (motion for Sanctions) filing fee -proposed orders Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10307715 Anderson, Kery Lee vs. Carter, Sandra et al Superior Court - Clallam 06-2-00575-1 Matter #: 10286639 Name: Washington State Department of Corrections vs. Rick Anthony Young Forum: Superior Court - Thurston Cause #: 06-2-00255-2 Costs (2) Cost Type Filing Fee Deposition Date Cost Incurred 2/7/2006 3/16/2006 Amount $200.00 $128.40 Invoice # 5988 TA-625 Vendor Note Superior Court Filing fee of $200.00. Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Dixie Cattell & Deposition costs of @128.40 Associates (Business/ Association) - Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10480937 McKee, Jeffrey R. vs. DOC, et. al. Washington State Supreme Court 84798-3 10419606 Francis, Shawn D. vs. DOC Superior Court - Snohomish 08-2-10813-7 10300410 Parmelee, Allan vs. Waddington, Douglas Superior Court - Grays Harbor 06-2-00518-6 Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01760 PRR-2011-00450 19 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Di Vittorio, Sara J -(AGO Attorney) - (91) Costs (3) Cost Type Ex Parte Fee Date Cost Incurred 4/5/2007 Amount $20.00 Invoice # Vendor DUP-Delete CP Grays Harbor County Superior Court Clerk (Court Clerk Office) Capitol Pacific Reporting, Inc.Olympia (Business/ Association) [Olympia] Capitol Pacific Reporting, Inc.Olympia (Business/ Association) [Olympia] Note Court Reporters 9/12/2008 $162.90 Court Reporters 12/19/2009 $173.10 252286 Deposition of Barbara Perry Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10455508 Johnson, Robert Earle vs. DOC Superior Court - Thurston 09-2-03002-0 Date Cost Incurred 12/28/2009 Amount $0.50 Invoice # 9191 Vendor Thurston County Superior Court Clerk -(Court Clerk Office) Note copy from court file Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10356168 McKee, Jeffrey R. vs. Thrush, Michele et al. Superior Court - Thurston 07-2-01788-4 Date Cost Incurred 4/10/2008 Amount $20.00 Invoice # 8381 Vendor Superior Court Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Note Costs (1) Cost Type Ex Parte Fee Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10413956 Parmelee, Allan vs. Clarke, et al Washington State Supreme Court 82813-0 10471541 Ashby, Michael Eugene vs. DOC Washington State Court of Appeals, Division I 65229-0-I 20 By: shaunnac Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01761 PRR-2011-00450 Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Di Vittorio, Sara J -(AGO Attorney) - (91) Matter #: 10400876 Name: Smith, Gary vs. Washington State Department of Corrections, et al Forum: Superior Court - Snohomish Cause #: 08-2-06040-1 Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10391466 Gitchel, Rodney vs. Department of Corrections Washington State Supreme Court 81738-3 10426578 Greenhalgh, Shawn D. vs. Department of Corrections Superior Court - Clallam 09-2-00494-6 10332131 Department of Corrections vs. Parmelee, Allan Washington State Supreme Court 79856-7 Matter #: 10480524 Name: Washington Coalition for Open Government vs. Washington Attorney General's Office and Department of Corrections Forum: Superior Court - Thurston Cause #: 10-2-01616-1 Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10380586 Wright, Andrew J. v. DOC Superior Court - Grays Harbor 08-2-00202-7 Date Cost Incurred 2/9/2009 Amount $20.00 Invoice # Vendor Superior Court Grays Harbor (Court) Note Costs (1) Cost Type Ex Parte Fee Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10477416 Johnson, Robert Earle vs. DOC Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 40831-7-II 10226771 Burt, Eric, et al. vs. DOC Superior Court - Walla Walla 05-2-00075-0 10436068 Silva, Matthew G. vs DOC., et al. Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 39439-1-II 21 By: shaunnac Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01762 PRR-2011-00450 Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Di Vittorio, Sara J -(AGO Attorney) - (91) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10481547 Reed, Charles V. vs DOC Washington State Supreme Court 84879-3 10479035 Wells, Rayne Dee Jr. vs. DOC Superior Court - Thurston 10-2-01437-1 10366723 Burt, Eric, et al. vs. DOC Washington State Supreme Court 80998-4 Date Cost Incurred 6/2/2010 Amount $922.55 Invoice # Vendor Parmelee, Allan W. -(Public) [Offender] Note Costs (1) Cost Type Costs Ordered Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10309069 Department of Corrections vs. Parmelee, Allan Superior Court - Thurston 06-2-01406-2 10431145 Reed, Charles V. vs DOC Washington State Supreme Court 83108-4 10464660 DOC vs. Troupe, David Superior Court - Thurston 10-2-01083-9 Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01763 PRR-2011-00450 22 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Di Vittorio, Sara J -(AGO Attorney) - (91) Costs (7) Cost Type Filing Fee Date Cost Incurred 5/14/2010 Amount $230.00 Invoice # 9431 Vendor Thurston County Superior Court Clerk -(Court Clerk Office) Grays Harbor Sheriff's Office (Government Local WA) Beswick, Rafe H., CCR -(Public) Beswick, Rafe H., CCR -(Public) Thurston County Superior Court Clerk -(Court Clerk Office) Thurston County Superior Court Clerk -(Court Clerk Office) Beswick, Rafe H., CCR -(Public) Note Legal Messenger 5/14/2010 $50.00 service on Troupe Copy & Reproduction Costs Copy & Reproduction Costs Copy & Reproduction Costs 8/11/2010 8/6/2010 9/13/2010 $120.00 $120.00 $5.00 Copy & Reproduction Costs 2/25/2011 $3.00 copy of documents Copy & Reproduction Costs Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 3/14/2011 $45.00 Copy of 2/25/11 hearing 10323882 Abbott, et al vs. DOC Superior Court - Walla Walla 06-2-01016-8 10335084 Benson, Germaine vs DOC Superior Court - Walla Walla 07-2-00212-1 10352162 Parmelee, Allan vs Clarke Superior Court - Thurston 07-2-01295-5 Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01764 PRR-2011-00450 23 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Di Vittorio, Sara J -(AGO Attorney) - (91) Costs (5) Cost Type Filing Fee Ex Parte Fee Ex Parte Fee Filing Fee Ex Parte Fee Date Cost Incurred 11/9/2007 5/14/2008 9/30/2008 1/27/2009 7/9/2009 Amount $125.00 $20.00 $20.00 $200.00 $20.00 20090101 8997 Invoice # Vendor Superior Court Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Superior Court Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Superior Court Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Superior Court Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Superior Court Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Note Jury Fee Deposit filing of Order filing of 8/29/08 order on motion Filing fee for counter claim filed in Sept. '08 filing of order denying motion for joinder Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10332102 Parmelee (Abbott), et al. vs. DOC Washington State Court of Appeals, Division III 25880-7-III Date Cost Incurred 7/8/2008 Amount $16.26 Invoice # 7813 Vendor Note Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10384147 Silva, Matthew G. vs DOC., et al. Superior Court - Thurston 08-2-00997-9 10490141 Orndorff, Shawn vs. Vail, Eldon Superior Court - Clallam 10-2-01043-5 Date Cost Incurred 3/30/2011 11/28/2011 Amount $5.00 $74.25 Invoice # Vendor Superior Court Clallam -(Court) Mc Aneny, Lisa (Public) Note fee for signing notice hearing Transcript of 10/7/11 Hrg Costs (2) Cost Type Filing Fee Court Reporters Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10393803 Volstad, Steven vs. DOC Superior Court - Snohomish 08-2-06048-7 10509787 State vs. Garvie, Eugene Superior Court - Snohomish 06-1-01151-6 24 By: shaunnac Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01765 PRR-2011-00450 Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Di Vittorio, Sara J -(AGO Attorney) - (91) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10372410 Matthews, Brian David vs. DOC Superior Court - Grays Harbor 07-2-01620-8 10482587 Cram, Eric B. vs. DOC Superior Court - Clallam 10-2-00832-5 Date Cost Incurred 6/17/2011 Amount $32.00 Invoice # Vendor Superior Court Clallam -(Court) Note re FF&CL Costs (1) Cost Type Ex Parte Fee Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10358681 Matthews, Brian David vs. DOC et al Superior Court - Grays Harbor 07-2-01224-5 Matter #: 10391344 Name: Mitchell, Kevin Michael vs. Washington State Department of Corrections Forum: Superior Court - Thurston Cause #: 08-2-01287-2 Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Date Cost Incurred 4/18/2011 Amount $1.00 Invoice # 9948 Vendor Superior Court Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Note Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10490886 Parmelee, Allan vs. Mathieu, Laura et al. Washington State Supreme Court 85242-1 10405696 Hicks, Ronnie vs, DOC Superior Court - Snohomish 08-2-08166-2 Date Cost Incurred 1/15/2009 Amount $40.00 Invoice # Vendor Superior Court Snohomish (Court) Note Costs (1) Cost Type Ex Parte Fee Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10480936 McKee, Jeffrey R. vs. DOC, et. al. Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 40939-9-II 25 By: shaunnac Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01766 PRR-2011-00450 Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Di Vittorio, Sara J -(AGO Attorney) - (91) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10345689 Department of Corrections v. Parmelee, Allan Superior Court - Thurston 07-2-01222-0 Date Cost Incurred 6/20/2007 10/28/2008 12/31/2008 Amount $200.00 $35.00 $85.00 #211466 Invoice # 7952 Vendor Note Costs (3) Cost Type Filing Fee Court Reporters Court Reporters Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Superior Court Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Davidson, Cheri L. -(Public) Bauer, Nancy L., Re Motion Hearing Transcript CCR -(Public) - 10308228 Reed, Charles V. vs DOC Superior Court - Grays Harbor 06-2-00849-5 10482997 Bronowski, Steven E. v WA State DOC Superior Court - Thurston 10-2-01711-6 Date Cost Incurred 8/13/2010 Amount $75.50 Invoice # 9598 Vendor Superior Court Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Note Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10383630 McKee, Jeffrey R. vs. DOC, et. al. Superior Court - Thurston 08-2-00386-5 Date Cost Incurred 4/7/2010 Amount $1.50 Invoice # 9341 Vendor Thurston County Superior Court Clerk -(Court Clerk Office) Thurston County Superior Court Clerk -(Court Clerk Office) Note Costs (2) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Copy & Reproduction Costs 10/28/2011 $26.50 10255 Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10371062 Wootton, Robert vs. DOC Superior Court - Mason 08-2-00122-2 Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01767 PRR-2011-00450 26 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Di Vittorio, Sara J -(AGO Attorney) - (91) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10424470 Elliott, Sam vs. Dept. of Corrections Superior Court - Thurston 09-2-00908-0 Date Cost Incurred 6/22/2009 Amount $20.00 Invoice # 8966 Vendor Superior Court Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Note Costs (1) Cost Type Ex Parte Fee Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10433833 Chester, David K., II, vs. DOC Washington State Court of Appeals, Division III 28126-4-III 10368589 McKee, Jeffrey R. vs. DOC et al Superior Court - Thurston 07-2-02252-7 Date Cost Incurred 12/19/2007 Amount $14.00 Invoice # 8220 Vendor Thurston County Superior Court Clerk -(Court Clerk Office) Note Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10376317 Matthews, Brian David vs. DOC Superior Court - Grays Harbor 08-2-00269-8 10366261 Parmelee, Allan vs. Clarke, et al Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 60836-3-I Date Cost Incurred 5/14/2008 Amount $8.24 Invoice # 7821 Vendor Note Costs (2) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Copy & Reproduction Costs 4/3/2008 $98.11 21687 Washington State Brief Printing Court of Appeals, Division I (Appellate Court) [Seattle] Attorneys' Information Bureau, Inc. (Business/ Association) - Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01768 PRR-2011-00450 27 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Di Vittorio, Sara J -(AGO Attorney) - (91) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10308207 Parmelee, Allan vs. Clarke, et al Superior Court - Snohomish 06-2-09101-7 Date Cost Incurred 10/4/2007 Amount $30.00 Invoice # Vendor DUP-Delete CP Snohomish County Superior Court Clerk -(Court Clerk Office) Superior Court Snohomish (Court) Note Costs (2) Cost Type Ex Parte Fee Ex Parte Fee 8/24/2007 $30.00 Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10371995 Greenhalgh, Shawn d. vs. DOC Superior Court - Clallam 07-2-01063-0 Date Cost Incurred 6/22/2009 Amount $22.00 Invoice # 5908709 Vendor ABC Legal Services, Inc. (Business/ Association) [Seattle] Note Costs (1) Cost Type Legal Messenger Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10526589 Silva, Matthew v. DOC Washington State Court of Appeals, Division I 67618-1-I 10431010 Francis, Shawn D. vs. DOC Washington State Court of Appeals, Division I 63433-0-I Date Cost Incurred 9/9/2009 Amount $7.05 Invoice # 9162 Vendor Note Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Washington State "Brief Printing" Court of Appeals, Division I (Appellate Court) [Seattle] Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10488387 Silva, Matthew v. DOC Superior Court - Snohomish 10-2-06461-1 Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01769 PRR-2011-00450 28 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Di Vittorio, Sara J -(AGO Attorney) - (91) Costs (1) Cost Type Court Reporters Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Date Cost Incurred 5/27/2011 Amount $42.00 Invoice # Vendor Note Rizzo, Judith Rae - VRP of 5/27/11 hearing (Public) - 10367143 Gitchel, Rodney vs. Department of Corrections Superior Court - Clallam 07-2-01142-3 10379868 Reed, Charles V. vs DOC Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 37442-1-II 10361718 Zohner, Judy vs. DOC Superior Court - Walla Walla 07-2-00858-7 Matter #: 10470117 Name: Washington Coalition for Open Government vs. Washington Attorney General's Office and Department of Corrections Forum: Superior Court - Thurston Cause #: 10-2-00485-5 Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10239957 Burt, Eric, et al. vs. DOC Washington State Court of Appeals, Division III 24076-2-III Date Cost Incurred 10/23/2006 Amount $91.44 Invoice # 6291 Vendor Note Costs (2) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Copy & Reproduction Costs 12/22/2006 $12.25 6475 Washington State Clerk's Papers Court of Appeals, Division III (Appellate Court) [Spokane] Washington State Printing of brief Court of Appeals, Division III (Appellate Court) [Spokane] Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10370104 McKee, Jeffrey R. vs. Thrush, Michele, DOC Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 37155-3-II Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01770 PRR-2011-00450 29 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Di Vittorio, Sara J -(AGO Attorney) - (91) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10384925 Henry, Robert C. vs. DOC Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 37560-5-II 10400930 Matthews, Brian David vs. DOC Superior Court - Grays Harbor 08-2-1392-4 Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01771 PRR-2011-00450 30 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Dibble, Candie M -(AGO Attorney) - (18) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10460182 McKee, Jeffrey R. vs. DOC Superior Court - Thurston 09-2-02875-1 10487611 Skipworth, Seth Ryan vs. DOC Superior Court - Thurston 10-2-02080-0 10515364 McKee, Jeffrey R. vs. DOC Superior Court - Spokane 11-2-02020-1 10491825 Hill, David E. v. DOC Superior Court - Thurston 10-2-02410-4 Date Cost Incurred 5/24/2011 Amount $142.50 Invoice # 4472.2 Vendor Note Costs (1) Cost Type Court Reporters Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10518915 Stone, Robert Brian vs. DOC Superior Court - Franklin 11-2-50652-8 10481847 Quinn, Daniel R. vs. DOC et al. Superior Court - Thurston 10-2-01687-0 Date Cost Incurred 8/9/2010 Amount $1.00 Invoice # 9622 Vendor Thurston County Superior Court Clerk -(Court Clerk Office) Note Copies from court file Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Matter #: 10525920 Name: McKee, Jeffrey R. vs. Washington State Department of Corrections Forum: Superior Court - Franklin Cause #: 11-2-50899-7 Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10505458 Stone, Robert Brian vs. DOC Superior Court - Spokane 11-2-00854-6 Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01772 PRR-2011-00450 31 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Dibble, Candie M -(AGO Attorney) - (18) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10496930 McKee, Jeffrey R. vs. DOC, et al. Superior Court - Spokane 10-2-05025-1 Date Cost Incurred 11/17/2011 Amount $20.00 Invoice # Vendor Cochran, Terri A. (Public) Note Costs (1) Cost Type Court Reporters Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10495027 Quinn, Daniel v. DOC, et al. Superior Court - Thurston 10-2-02604-2 Date Cost Incurred 12/6/2010 Amount $1.00 Invoice # 9757 Vendor Note Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Superior Court copy of records Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10443871 Greenhalgh, Shawn D. vs. DOC Superior Court - Snohomish 09-2-07448-6 10443868 Greenhalgh, Shawn D. Superior Court - Pierce 09-2-12311-5 10481891 Bartz, George vs. DOC PDU Superior Court - Thurston 10-2-02314-1 Date Cost Incurred 11/4/2010 Amount $7.00 Invoice # 9714 Vendor Thurston County Superior Court Clerk -(Court Clerk Office) Thurston County Superior Court Clerk -(Court Clerk Office) Jones, Pamela R., CCR -(Public) Note Copies from court Costs (3) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Copy & Reproduction Costs 11/30/2010 $5.00 9756 Copies from court Court Reporters 8/5/2011 $70.00 2548 Trancript of 7/22 hearing Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01773 PRR-2011-00450 32 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Dibble, Candie M -(AGO Attorney) - (18) Matter #: 10391345 Name: Mitchell, Kevin Michael vs. Washington State Department of Corrections Forum: Superior Court - Thurston Cause #: 08-2-01342-9 Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10524547 Bartz, George vs. DOC PDU Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 42478-9-II 10487228 Leigh, Aaron vs. DOC Superior Court - Thurston 10-2-02081-8 Date Cost Incurred 9/28/2010 Amount $1.00 Invoice # 9673 Vendor Thurston County Superior Court Clerk -(Court Clerk Office) Note copies of documents Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10504552 Chester, David II vs. DOC Superior Court - Spokane 11-2-00329-3 10517220 Ashby, Michael Eugene vs. DOC Superior Court - Franklin 11-2-50491-6 Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01774 PRR-2011-00450 33 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Frinell, Kimberly -(AGO Attorney) - (2) Matter #: 10510551 Name: Yohe, Adam vs. DOC Forum: Superior Court - Thurston Cause #: Matter #: 10496189 Name: Bell, Warren E. vs. Washington State Department of Corrections Forum: Superior Court - Thurston Cause #: 10-2-01560-1 Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Date Cost Incurred 12/29/2010 Amount $8.00 Invoice # 9772 Vendor Superior Court Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Note Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01775 PRR-2011-00450 34 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Howell, Jason M -(AGO Attorney) - (16) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10342756 Delong, Thomas et al vs. DOC et al Washington State Supreme Court 80159-2 10471835 Francis, Shawn D. v. DOC Washington State Supreme Court 84516-6 10350556 Elliott, Samual J. vs. DOC Superior Court - Pierce 07-2-12105-1 Date Cost Incurred 7/29/2008 Amount $40.00 Invoice # Vendor Superior Court Pierce -(Court) Note Order Dismissing Complaint Costs (1) Cost Type Ex Parte Fee Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10394097 Mitchell, Kevin vs. DOC Superior Court - Grays Harbor 08-2-00879-3 Date Cost Incurred 11/21/2008 9/30/2008 Amount $20.00 $27.50 Invoice # Vendor Superior Court Grays Harbor (Court) Superior Court Grays Harbor (Court) Note Order Granting Motion to Dismiss copies of case file Costs (2) Cost Type Ex Parte Fee Copy & Reproduction Costs Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10334533 Delong, Thomas et al vs. DOC et al Washington State Supreme Court 79933-4 10392119 Hall, Frances vs DOC Superior Court - Snohomish 08-2-05633-1 Date Cost Incurred 9/16/2008 7/9/2008 Amount $30.00 $8.00 Invoice # Vendor Note Costs (2) Cost Type Ex Parte Fee Filing Fee Superior Court Snohomish (Court) - fax/file fee (rec'd letter 6/21/10) Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01776 PRR-2011-00450 35 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Howell, Jason M -(AGO Attorney) - (16) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10340447 Levy, Percy vs. DOC Superior Court - Thurston 07-2-00796-0 10318605 Gronquist, Derek E. vs. DOC Superior Court - Grays Harbor 06-2-01324-3 10363979 Gronquist, Derek E. vs. DOC Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 36948-6-II 10315626 Delong, Thomas et al vs. DOC et al Superior Court - Clallam 06-2-00878-5 Date Cost Incurred 11/1/2006 11/29/2006 Amount $20.00 $20.00 Invoice # Vendor Superior Court Clallam -(Court) Superior Court Clallam -(Court) Note Costs (2) Cost Type Ex Parte Fee Ex Parte Fee Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10383805 McKee, Jeffrey R. vs. DOC, et. al. Superior Court - Grays Harbor 08-2-00442-9 Date Cost Incurred 10/1/2008 1/16/2009 2/4/2009 2/11/2009 Amount $20.00 $13.00 $52.25 $20.00 Invoice # Vendor Superior Court Grays Harbor (Court) Superior Court Grays Harbor (Court) Johnson, Brenda (Public) -[02/02/ 1979] Superior Court Grays Harbor (Court) Note filing fee - Order Denying Motion to Compel and Granting Motion to Dismiss Redding fax filing (Motion for Sanctions) VRP of 1/23/09 hearing - 08-2-00443-7 (SJO) and 08-2-00442-9 (JMH) filing fee - proposed orders Costs (4) Cost Type Filing Fee Filing Fee Court Reporters Ex Parte Fee Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10309126 Lofton, Larnel Webb vs. DOC Superior Court - Snohomish 06-2-09347-8 Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01777 PRR-2011-00450 36 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Howell, Jason M -(AGO Attorney) - (16) Matter #: 10333293 Name: Greenhalgh, Shawn vs. Washington State Department of Corrections Forum: Superior Court - Pierce Cause #: 07-2-06009-5 Costs (1) Cost Type Settlement Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Date Cost Incurred 8/2/2007 Amount $9,500.00 Invoice # Vendor Note Payout to Plaintiff for Settlement 10328922 Gronquist, Derek E. vs. DOC Superior Court - Clallam 07-2-00212-2 Date Cost Incurred 4/7/2008 Amount $22,500.00 Invoice # Vendor Note Costs (1) Cost Type Settlement Washington State combined settlement with cause # 07-2Department of 00562-0 Corrections -(State Agency) [Olympia] Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10324710 Hutcheson, James vs DOC Superior Court - Snohomish 06-2-13022-5 Date Cost Incurred 8/6/2007 Amount $40,000.00 Invoice # Vendor Note Costs (1) Cost Type Settlement Washington State Paid - check #566220 H 8/2/07 Department of Corrections -(State Agency) [Olympia] Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10403736 McKee, Jeffrey R. vs. DOC, et. al. Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 38409-4-II Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01778 PRR-2011-00450 37 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Judge, Daniel J -(AGO Attorney) - (11) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10433406 Bailey, Alan et al. v. DOC Superior Court - Walla Walla 09-2-00513-4 Matter #: 10427651 Name: Doe, Jane (Robbins, Christa) vs. Washington State Department of Corrections Forum: Superior Court - Pierce Cause #: 09-2-08002-5 Costs (1) Cost Type Legal Messenger Date Cost Incurred 5/22/2009 Amount $60.00 Invoice # 20110714 Vendor ABC Legal Services, Inc. (Business/ Association) [Olympia] Note DOE v. DOC Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10469297 Gaweda, Urszula vs. DOC Superior Court - Snohomish 10-2-04137-9 10379987 Sullivan, Cheryl vs. DOC et al Superior Court - Grays Harbor 08-2-00293-1 10420630 DOC employee initiated injunction action Superior Court - Snohomish 09-2-03026-8 Matter #: 10448607 Name: Greenhalgh, Shawn D. vs. DOC Forum: Superior Court - Pierce Cause #: Matter #: 10412715 Name: Taylor, Linda M. vs. Washington State Department of Corrections Forum: Superior Court - Snohomish Cause #: 08-2-10254-6 Costs (2) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Ex Parte Fee Date Cost Incurred 12/26/2008 4/6/2009 Amount $0.25 $40.00 Invoice # Vendor Note Copy of Order Ex parte fee re Order of Dismissal Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01779 PRR-2011-00450 38 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Judge, Daniel J -(AGO Attorney) - (11) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10427561 Speredowich, Madeline vs. DOC Superior Court - Snohomish 09-2-04417-0 10298833 Lawson, Leslie vs. DOC Superior Court - Snohomish 06-2-08166-6 10422100 Kopoian, Catherine et al. vs. DOC Superior Court - Snohomish 09-2-03331-3 Matter #: 10422344 Name: Teamsters Local Union No. 117, et al. v. Department of Corrections Forum: Superior Court - Snohomish Cause #: 09-2-03398-4 Costs (1) Cost Type Court Reporters Date Cost Incurred 3/26/2009 Amount $29.00 Invoice # 227584 Vendor Northwest Court Reporters, Inc. (Business/ Association) Note Transcript of Joseph Simmons dep Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01780 PRR-2011-00450 39 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Lang, Timothy N -(AGO Attorney) - (12) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10453596 DOC & AGO vs. Parmelee, Allan Washington State Supreme Court 83902-6 10393807 Mitchell, Kevin Michael vs. DOC Superior Court - Thurston 08-2-00815-8 Date Cost Incurred 7/24/2008 5/25/2010 Amount $2.50 $35.00 Invoice # Vendor Note Costs (2) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Court Reporters Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Superior Court Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Davidson, Cheri L. Copy of July 31, 2009 Transcript -(Public) - 10461261 Greenhalgh, Shawn vs. DOC Superior Court - Pierce 10-2-06108-3 10340078 McKee, Jeffrey vs. Madison, Ken, et al. Superior Court - Mason 07-2-00180-1 10439424 DOC & AGO vs. Parmelee, Allan Superior Court - Thurston 09-2-02079-2 Date Cost Incurred 8/28/2009 8/28/2009 Amount $230.00 $57.00 Invoice # Vendor Superior Court Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Grays Harbor Sheriff's Office (Government Local WA) Superior Court Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Superior Court Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Superior Court Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Note Costs (5) Cost Type Filing Fee Legal Messenger Service of documents Copy & Reproduction Costs Copy & Reproduction Costs Copy & Reproduction Costs 11/17/2009 1/12/2010 1/6/2010 $8.00 $844.25 $10.50 9191 9204 9214 Copies of documents from court file Clerk's Papers Copies of documents from court file Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01781 PRR-2011-00450 40 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Lang, Timothy N -(AGO Attorney) - (12) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10529100 Silva, Matthew G. vs. McKenna, Rob Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 42633-1-II 10450150 Mitchell, Kevin Michael vs. DOC Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 39874-5-II Date Cost Incurred 10/1/2010 Amount $5.90 Invoice # 6339 Vendor Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II (Appellate Court) [Tacoma] Note Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10516056 Silva, Matthew v. McKenna, Rob Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 41936-0-II 10376765 McKee, Jeffrey vs. Madison, Ken, et al. Superior Court - Thurston 08-2-00338-5 Date Cost Incurred 6/16/2008 2/19/2009 1/15/2010 Amount $50.00 $0.50 $40.00 Invoice # Vendor Note Costs (3) Cost Type Court Transcripts Copy & Reproduction Costs Court Reporters Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Beswick, Rafe H., CCR -(Public) Superior Court copies of documents Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Jones, Pamela R., hearing transcript CCR -(Public) - 10508987 Silva, Matthew v. McKenna, Rob Washington State Supreme Court 85818-7 10480256 Silva, Matthew v. McKenna, Rob Superior Court - Thurston 10-2-00788-9 Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01782 PRR-2011-00450 41 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Lang, Timothy N -(AGO Attorney) - (12) Costs (2) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Copy & Reproduction Costs Date Cost Incurred 7/23/2010 3/4/2011 Amount $2.50 $1.50 Invoice # 9550 9885 Vendor Note Superior Court Copies of documents from the court file Thurston -(Court) - that we were not served with [Thurston Cy] Superior Court Copies of documents Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10505027 Silva, Matthew G. vs. McKenna, Rob Superior Court - Thurston 11-2-00555-8 Date Cost Incurred 3/31/2011 Amount $9.00 Invoice # 9925 Vendor Superior Court Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Note Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01783 PRR-2011-00450 42 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Lowy, Ohad M -(AGO Attorney) - (15) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10500773 McKee, Jeffrey vs. DOC Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 41682-4-II 10508898 Burdge, Jack vs. DOC Superior Court - Walla Walla 11-2-00283-8 10477483 Chester, David K. II vs. DOC Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 40866-0-II Date Cost Incurred 3/16/2011 Amount $4.90 Invoice # 6683 Vendor Note Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Washington State printing of briefs Court of Appeals, Division II (Appellate Court) [Tacoma] Matter #: 10488237 Name: DOC and AGO vs. Silva, Matthew Forum: Superior Court - Thurston Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10522285 Williams, Carlos John vs. DOC Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 67401-3-I 10465563 Chester, David K. II vs. DOC Superior Court - Thurston 10-2-00288-7 Date Cost Incurred 3/25/2010 Amount $0.50 Invoice # 9341 Vendor Thurston County Superior Court Clerk -(Court Clerk Office) Thurston County Superior Court Clerk -(Court Clerk Office) Thurston County Superior Court Clerk -(Court Clerk Office) Note sent to fiscal 4/8/10 Costs (3) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Copy & Reproduction Costs 5/10/2010 $0.50 Copy & Reproduction Costs 6/9/2010 $1.00 Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01784 PRR-2011-00450 43 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Lowy, Ohad M -(AGO Attorney) - (15) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10505461 Williams, Carlos John vs. DOC Superior Court - Snohomish 10-2-06473-5 10524570 Bartz, George vs. DOC Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 42485-1-II 10505581 Bartz, George vs. DOC Superior Court - Thurston 11-2-00712-7 Date Cost Incurred 4/4/2011 Amount $0.50 Invoice # 9927 Vendor Thurston County Superior Court Clerk -(Court Clerk Office) Jones, Pamela R., CCR -(Public) Note copy of document Costs (2) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Court Reporters Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 12/12/2011 $170.00 2596 copy of hearing transcript 10510935 Francis, Shawn D. v. DOC Superior Court - Thurston 11-2-00828-0 Date Cost Incurred 4/29/2011 Amount $3.00 Invoice # 9979 Vendor Superior Court Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Note Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10443582 Ford, Edward vs. DOC Superior Court - Grays Harbor 09-2-01223-3 10528528 Francis, Shawn D. v. DOC Washington State Supreme Court 86538-8 10509571 Kozol, Steven P. vs. May, et al. Superior Court - Grays Harbor 11-2-00193-4 Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01785 PRR-2011-00450 44 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Lowy, Ohad M -(AGO Attorney) - (15) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10505710 McKee, Jeffrey vs. DOC Washington State Supreme Court 85698-2 10479659 McKee, Jeffrey vs. DOC Superior Court - Thurston 10-2-01366-8 Date Cost Incurred 7/30/2010 11/15/2010 Amount $1.50 $1.00 Invoice # 9566 9733 Vendor Superior Court Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Superior Court Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Note Costs (2) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Copy & Reproduction Costs Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01786 PRR-2011-00450 45 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: McLachlan, Mary (Kate) -(AGO Attorney) - (9) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10394607 Coats, Aaron W. vs. DOC Superior Court - Spokane 08-2-03114-9 Date Cost Incurred 5/27/2009 Amount $613.29 Invoice # Vendor Note Warrant #046892P paid for fines/ penalties Costs (1) Cost Type Costs Ordered Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10328663 Gronquist, Derek E. vs. DOC Superior Court - Spokane 07-2-00562-0 10404424 Silva, Matthew vs. DOC Superior Court - Spokane 08-2-04386-4 10367037 Baskett, Ronald L vs. DOC Superior Court - Spokane 07-2-05302-1 10412562 Silva, Matthew vs. DOC, et al. Washington State Supreme Court 82481-9 10383181 Silva, Matthew vs. DOC, et al. Superior Court - Spokane 08-2-01809-6 Matter #: 10327289 Name: Boyd, Stacy vs. Washington State Department of Corrections Forum: Superior Court - Spokane Cause #: 07-2-00052-1 Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10404381 Silva, Matthew vs. DOC, et al. Washington State Court of Appeals, Division III 27467-5-III Matter #: 10403926 Name: Boyd, Stacy vs. Washington State Department of Corrections Forum: Superior Court - Spokane Cause #: 08-2-02485-1 Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01787 PRR-2011-00450 46 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Meyn, Jean E. -(AGO Attorney) - (14) Matter #: 10383632 Name: McKee, Jeffrey R. vs. DOC, et. al. Forum: Superior Court - Thurston Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10503212 Simms, Daniel Jeremiah v. DOC Superior Court - Thurston 11-2-00611-2 10443529 McKee, Jeffrey R. vs, DOC, et. al. Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 39713-7-II Date Cost Incurred 6/3/2010 Amount $8.48 Invoice # 6096 Vendor Note Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Washington State Printing of Respondents Brief Court of Appeals, Division II (Appellate Court) [Tacoma] Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10383627 McKee, Jeffrey R. vs, DOC, et. al. Superior Court - Thurston 08-2-00529-9 Date Cost Incurred 10/1/2008 Amount $2.00 Invoice # Vendor Thurston County Superior Court Clerk -(Court Clerk Office) Note Copying documents out of court file Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10458801 Greenhalgh, Shawn vs. DOC Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 40144-4-II Date Cost Incurred 6/30/2010 Amount $10.97 Invoice # 6120 Vendor Note Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Washington State Copying of Respondent's Brief Court of Appeals, Division II (Appellate Court) [Tacoma] Matter #: 10383631 Name: McKee, Jeffrey R. vs. DOC, et. al. Forum: Superior Court - Thurston Cause #: Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01788 PRR-2011-00450 47 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Meyn, Jean E. -(AGO Attorney) - (14) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10495028 Quinn, Daniel v. DOC, et al. Superior Court - Thurston 10-2-02603-4 10496787 Domke, Todd vs. DOC Superior Court - Thurston 10-2-02691-3 10385814 Greenhalgh, Shawn vs. DOC Superior Court - Grays Harbor 08-2-00504-2 Date Cost Incurred 5/14/2008 7/17/2009 11/25/2009 4/23/2010 Amount $3.50 $11.00 $30.00 $6.39 0204 Invoice # Vendor Superior Court Grays Harbor (Court) Superior Court Grays Harbor (Court) Superior Court Grays Harbor (Court) Superior Court Grays Harbor (Court) Note for copy of summons/complaint fax/file reply to cross-MSJ Costs (4) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Filing Fee Ex Parte Fee Copy & Reproduction Costs Fee re Designation of Clerk's Papers Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10490525 Wells, Rayne Dee vs. DOC Superior Court - Mason 10-2-01030-4 10383628 McKee, Jeffrey R. vs. DOC, et. al. Superior Court - Thurston 08-2-00527-2 Date Cost Incurred 10/1/2008 Amount $2.00 Invoice # Vendor Thurston County Superior Court Clerk -(Court Clerk Office) Thurston County Superior Court Clerk -(Court Clerk Office) Note Copying documents out of court file Costs (2) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Copy & Reproduction Costs 3/22/2010 $3.00 Copying documents out of court file Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01789 PRR-2011-00450 48 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Meyn, Jean E. -(AGO Attorney) - (14) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10505340 Wells, Rayne D. Jr. vs. DOC Superior Court - Clallam 11-2-00224-4 Date Cost Incurred 9/15/2011 Amount $1.50 Invoice # Vendor Superior Court Mason -(Court) Note re: order of dismissal Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10383629 McKee, Jeffrey R. vs. DOC, et.al. Superior Court - Thurston 08-2-00528-1 Date Cost Incurred 5/8/2008 Amount $6.00 Invoice # Vendor Thurston County Superior Court Clerk -(Court Clerk Office) Thurston County Superior Court Clerk -(Court Clerk Office) Note Copying documents out of court file Costs (2) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Copy & Reproduction Costs 10/1/2008 $2.00 Copying documents out of court file Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10481182 Wells, Rayne Dee Jr. vs. DOC Superior Court - Thurston 10-2-01388-9 Date Cost Incurred 8/13/2010 Amount $4.50 Invoice # 9598 Vendor Superior Court Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Note Costs (1) Cost Type Costs Ordered Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01790 PRR-2011-00450 49 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Migchelbrink, Amanda M -(AGO Attorney) - (8) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10284077 Brown, Kelly B. vs. DOC Superior Court - Grays Harbor 06-2-00124-5 Matter #: 10508853 Name: DOC v. Castillo, Matthew Forum: Superior Court - Walla Walla Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10314124 Brown, Kelly B. vs. DOC Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 35298-2-II 10476353 Davis, Sarena A. vs. DOC Superior Court - Thurston 10-2-01275-1 Date Cost Incurred 6/29/2010 Amount $27.00 Invoice # 9500 Vendor Thurston County Superior Court Clerk -(Court Clerk Office) Note Copy of Court File Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10322550 Brown, Kelly B. vs. DOC Washington State Supreme Court 79544-4 Matter #: 10383942 Name: Martin, Samuel D. v. Washington State Deparment of Corrections Forum: Superior Court - Spokane Cause #: 08-2-01402-3 Matter #: 10413224 Name: Martin, Samuel D. v. Washington State Deparment of Corrections Forum: Washington State Supreme Court Cause #: 82509-2 Matter #: 10410549 Name: Martin, Samuel D. v. Washington State Deparment of Corrections Forum: Washington State Court of Appeals, Division III Cause #: 27539-6-III Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01791 PRR-2011-00450 50 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Mounsey Longmeier, Lynn Marie -(AGO Attorney) - (5) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10505666 Silva, Matthew G. vs. DOC Superior Court - Spokane 11-2-01565-8 Date Cost Incurred 12/6/2011 Amount $88.00 Invoice # Vendor Note Costs (1) Cost Type Court Reporters Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Cochran, Terri A. - Transcript 6/17/11 hearing (Public) - 10481051 Chester, David K. vs. DOC Superior Court - Spokane 10-2-02894-8 10469990 Greenhalgh, Shawn v. DOC Superior Court - Spokane 10-2-00064-4 Date Cost Incurred 9/9/2010 Amount $0.75 Invoice # Vendor Spokane County Superior Court Clerk -(Court Clerk Office) Note Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10509962 Silva, Matthew v. DOC Superior Court - Walla Walla 10-2-01168-5 10518921 Silva, Matthew vs. DOC Washington State Court of Appeals, Division III 30091-9-III Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01792 PRR-2011-00450 51 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Murphy, Carol A -(AGO Attorney) - (1) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10018029 Gronquist, Derek E. vs Hillman, Annette, et al. Superior Court - Spokane 01-2-02452-8 Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01793 PRR-2011-00450 52 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Vingo, Andrea C -(AGO Attorney) - (40) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10481718 Phipps, Linniell vs. Judge, Dan & Olson, Sara Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 41317-5-II Matter #: 10490665 Name: Greenhalgh, Shawn D. vs. Office of the Attorney General Forum: Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II Cause #: 41249-7-II Matter #: 10467721 Name: Binford, Bobby Laythen vs. Department of Corrections, et al. Forum: Washington State Supreme Court Cause #: 84381-3 Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10457218 Silva, Matthew vs. DOC., et al. Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 40161-4-II 10475849 Levy, Percy vs. DOC Superior Court - Thurston 10-2-01087-1 Date Cost Incurred 11/22/2010 Amount $30.00 Invoice # 9732 Vendor Note Costs (1) Cost Type Ex Parte Fee Superior Court Dismissal/Stipulation Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10381731 Greenhalgh, Shawn D. vs. DOC., et. al. Superior Court - Grays Harbor 08-2-00431-3 Date Cost Incurred 6/22/2009 Amount $78.78 Invoice # 5908711 Vendor ABC Legal Services, Inc. (Business/ Association) [Seattle] Hamilton, Randi R., CCR -(Public) Superior Court Grays Harbor (Court) Note service of offer of judgment to plaintiff's counsel Costs (3) Cost Type Legal Messenger Court Reporters Filing Fee 5/10/2010 6/8/2010 $30.50 $34.00 VRP for MSJ ruling on 5/10/10 Ex Parte fee/copies of orders Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01794 PRR-2011-00450 53 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Vingo, Andrea C -(AGO Attorney) - (40) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10392349 Hicks, Ronnie L. vs. DOC., et al. Superior Court - Snohomish 08-2-05190-9 Date Cost Incurred 12/8/2009 Amount $53.27 Invoice # Vendor Note Cross-designation of clerk's papers Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10476397 Silva, Matthew vs. DOC, et al. Washington State Supreme Court 84667-7 10432134 Hicks, Ronnie L. vs. DOC., et al. Washington State Court of Appeals, Division I 63489-5-I Date Cost Incurred 2/22/2010 Amount $6.59 Invoice # 9759 Vendor Note Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10511577 Phipps, Linniell vs. Judge, Dan & Olson, Sara Washington State Supreme Court 85932-9 10443298 Gronquist, Derek et al vs DOC Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 39651-3-II Date Cost Incurred 8/6/2010 Amount $4.81 Invoice # Vendor Note Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Washington State "Printing Respondent's Brief" Court of Appeals, Division II (Appellate Court) [Tacoma] Matter #: 10467883 Name: Binford, Bobby Laythen vs. Department of Corrections, et al. Forum: Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II Cause #: 40506-7-II Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10510815 Wynn, Kimothy vs. DOC, et al., Superior Court - Thurston 11-2-00881-6 Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01795 PRR-2011-00450 54 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Vingo, Andrea C -(AGO Attorney) - (40) Costs (2) Cost Type Court Reporters Court Reporters Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Date Cost Incurred 6/6/2011 8/29/2011 Amount $75.00 $50.00 Invoice # Vendor Beehler, Kathryn A. -(Public) Beehler, Kathryn A. -(Public) Note 5/27/11 hearing transcript 8/19/11 hearing transcript 10502524 Gronquist, Derek et al vs DOC Washington State Supreme Court 85640-1 10458331 Silva, Matthew vs. DOC, et al. Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 40188-6-II 10477505 Francis, Shawn D. vs. DOC Superior Court - Pierce 10-2-10630-3 Date Cost Incurred 9/16/2011 Amount $60.00 Invoice # 1301 Vendor Dirton, Emily (Public) Note Transcript of hearing Costs (1) Cost Type Court Reporters Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10504995 Spurlock, Patrick Keving vs. Perry Barbara et al., Washington State Court of Appeals, Division I 66618-5-I 10485129 Hicks, Ronnie L. vs. DOC., et al. Washington State Supreme Court 85081-0 10362934 Silva, Matthew vs. DOC, et al. Superior Court - Mason 07-2-00922-5 Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01796 PRR-2011-00450 55 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Vingo, Andrea C -(AGO Attorney) - (40) Costs (10) Cost Type Filing Fee Ex Parte Fee Copy & Reproduction Costs Copy & Reproduction Costs Ex Parte Fee Copy & Reproduction Costs Ex Parte Fee Filing Fee Ex Parte Fee Copy & Reproduction Costs Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Date Cost Incurred 1/18/2008 4/28/2008 10/2/2008 10/6/2008 5/13/2009 9/29/2009 9/17/2009 5/4/2010 8/25/2010 7/14/2011 Amount $125.00 $20.00 $7.00 $14.00 $20.00 $10.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $10.00 Invoice # Vendor Superior Court Mason -(Court) Superior Court Mason -(Court) Superior Court Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Superior Court Snohomish (Court) Superior Court Mason -(Court) Superior Court Mason -(Court) Superior Court Mason -(Court) Superior Court Mason -(Court) Superior Court Mason -(Court) Superior Court Mason -(Court) Note jury fees ex parte fee certified copy of J&S (95-1-01055-9) certified copy of J&S (96-1-01581-9) order granting leave to amend answer CD of 9/22 & 9/25/09 hearings ex parte fee order on cost bill order on motion for recon/CR 11 sanctions CD of hrg held on 3/7/11 10362935 Silva, Matthew vs. Francis, Lyn, & DOC, et al. Superior Court - Mason 07-2-00929-2 Date Cost Incurred 4/28/2008 2/23/2009 Amount $20.00 $200.00 Invoice # Vendor Superior Court Mason -(Court) Office of Risk Management (Business/ Association) Superior Court Mason -(Court) Note ex parte fee Costs (3) Cost Type Ex Parte Fee Attorneys Fees Ex Parte Fee Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 9/17/2008 $30.00 order striking motion 10422447 Silva, Matthew vs. Francis, Lyn, & DOC, et al. Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 38925-8-II 10396763 Greenhalgh, Shawn D. vs DOC., et al Superior Court - Thurston 08-2-01203-1 Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01797 PRR-2011-00450 56 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Vingo, Andrea C -(AGO Attorney) - (40) Costs (4) Cost Type Court Reporters Date Cost Incurred 10/22/2009 Amount $161.95 Invoice # 24620 Vendor Capitol Pacific Reporting, Inc.Olympia (Business/ Association) [Olympia] Superior Court Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Superior Court Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Superior Court Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Note Transcript copy; exhibits; e-transcripts. Ex Parte Fee Copy & Reproduction Costs Ex Parte Fee 11/12/2010 1/24/2011 2/11/2011 $30.00 $1.50 $30.00 9714 9819 9851 Stipulated motion to continue the trial date copy of 12/21/10 order filing of dismissal Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10509971 Kozol, Steven vs. DOC Superior Court - Grays Harbor 11-2-00379-1 10528743 Entler, John Thomas vs. DOC Washington State Supreme Court 86564-7 10377903 Silva, Matthew vs. DOC., et al. Superior Court - Mason 08-2-00140-1 Date Cost Incurred 4/28/2008 5/13/2009 9/29/2009 9/17/2009 5/4/2010 8/25/2010 Amount $20.00 $20.00 $10.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 Invoice # Vendor Superior Court Mason -(Court) Superior Court Mason -(Court) Superior Court Mason -(Court) Superior Court Mason -(Court) Superior Court Mason -(Court) Superior Court Mason -(Court) Note ex parte fee order granting leave to amend answer CD of 9/22 & 9/25/09 hearings ex parte fee order on cost bill order on motion for recon/CR 11 sanctions Costs (6) Cost Type Ex Parte Fee Ex Parte Fee Copy & Reproduction Costs Ex Parte Fee Filing Fee Ex Parte Fee Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10498511 Greenhalgh, Shawn D. vs. DOC Superior Court - Pierce 10-2-15386-7 Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01798 PRR-2011-00450 57 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Vingo, Andrea C -(AGO Attorney) - (40) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10459063 DOC vs. Barragan, Miguel A Superior Court - Clallam 10-2-00167-3 Date Cost Incurred 2/9/2010 3/2/2010 Amount $230.00 $20.40 Invoice # Vendor Superior Court Clallam -(Court) Note filing fee for summons/complaint personal service by Walla Walla Sheriff Costs (2) Cost Type Filing Fee Legal Messenger Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10490505 Entler, John Thomas vs. DOC Washington State Court of Appeals, Division I 66042-0-I Date Cost Incurred 2/1/2011 Amount $5.67 Invoice # 10768 Vendor Note Costs (1) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Washington State "Brief Printing" Court of Appeals, Division I (Appellate Court) [Seattle] Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10482953 Baker, Shappa vs. DOC Superior Court - Thurston 10-2-01552-1 Date Cost Incurred 3/21/2011 5/12/2011 5/19/2011 5/27/2011 Amount $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 $30.00 10010 Invoice # 9917 9985 Vendor Superior Court Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Superior Court Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Superior Court Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Superior Court Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Note Costs (4) Cost Type Ex Parte Fee Ex Parte Fee Ex Parte Fee Ex Parte Fee Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10476409 Silva, Matthew vs. DOC., et al. Washington State Supreme Court 84668-5 10474190 Entler, John Thomas vs. DOC Superior Court - Snohomish 10-2-05000-9 58 By: shaunnac Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01799 PRR-2011-00450 Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Vingo, Andrea C -(AGO Attorney) - (40) Matter #: 10421071 Name: Greenhalgh, Shawn D. vs. Office of the Attorney General Forum: Superior Court - Thurston Cause #: 08-2-02706-3 Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10491818 Kennedy, Diane v. DOC Superior Court - Thurston 10-2-02409-1 Date Cost Incurred 4/20/2011 Amount $65.00 Invoice # Vendor Note Costs (1) Cost Type Court Reporters Superior Court MSJ Hearing transcript Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Matter #: 10412229 Name: Binford, Bobby Laythen vs. Department of Corrections, et al. Forum: Superior Court - Thurston Cause #: 08-2-02273-8 Costs (2) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Copy & Reproduction Costs Date Cost Incurred 2/1/2010 4/7/2010 Amount $0.50 $1.50 Invoice # Vendor Note Superior Court copy of dkt #24 Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Superior Court copy of dkt #44 Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10515355 McKee, Jeffrey R. vs. DOC Superior Court - Franklin 11-2-50489-4 Date Cost Incurred 8/24/2011 Amount $75.00 Invoice # Vendor Munoz, Renee (Public) Note 7/15/11 hearing transcript Costs (1) Cost Type Court Reporters Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10496983 Faulk, Darren vs. DOC. Superior Court - Thurston 10-2-02753-7 Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01800 PRR-2011-00450 59 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: Vingo, Andrea C -(AGO Attorney) - (40) Costs (2) Cost Type Ex Parte Fee Witness Cost Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Date Cost Incurred 4/7/2011 5/23/2011 Amount $30.00 $418.75 Invoice # 9927 2135 Vendor Note Superior Court filing of scheduling order Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Karp, Adam P. 1/2 of mediation fees (Attorney) - 10426559 Greenhalgh, Shawn D. vs. DOC Superior Court - Thurston 09-2-01104-1 Date Cost Incurred 5/11/2009 4/22/2011 Amount $4.00 $30.00 Invoice # 8880 9955 Vendor Note Costs (2) Cost Type Copy & Reproduction Costs Ex Parte Fee Superior Court Copies of documents from court file Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Superior Court dismissal Thurston -(Court) [Thurston Cy] Matter #: 10479545 Name: Wilcox, Nathan J. Forum: Superior Court - Thurston Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10317758 Gronquist, Derek et al vs DOC Superior Court - Thurston 06-2-01869-6 10488645 Spurlock, Patirck Keving vs. Perry Barbara et al., Superior Court - Snohomish 10-2-09778-1 Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01801 PRR-2011-00450 60 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Assigned to: vanRoojen, Cassie B -(AGO Attorney) - (4) Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: Matter #: Name: Forum: Cause #: 10515747 Moore, David vs. DOC Superior Court - Spokane 11-2-02213-1 10508389 Holmberg, Michael vs. DOC Superior Court - Grays Harbor 11-2-00253-1 10515753 Moore, David vs. DOC Superior Court - Spokane 11-2-02214-0 10529288 Holmberg, Michael vs. DOC Washington State Court of Appeals, Division II 42626-9-II Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01802 PRR-2011-00450 61 By: shaunnac Attorney General of Washington PRR-2011-00450-Frame Costs Report complete. Number of main records listed: 316 Report run on 12/21/2011 SF-01803 PRR-2011-00450 62 By: shaunnac IN TI-IE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND OR THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH SHAWN FRANCIS, NO. 08-2-10313-7 Plaintiff, STIPULATED ORDER v. OF DISMISSAL DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant. THIS MATTER, having come before this Court on the stipulated motion of Plaintiff, Shawn Francis, and the Defendant, Department of Corrections, both parties herein advising the Court that all matters in controversy arising out of public disclosure request referenced by the Defendant as PD7-309, made pursuant to RCW 42.56 et SEQ., and which are the source of their claims against the Defendant as described in Plaintiffs Complaint, have been fully settledand compromised, and the court having been advised in the premises, now, therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that Plaintiff Shawn Francis' claim based upon the public disclosure request as described in Plaintiffs -Complaint in this action, (03-2-10313-7) 5215 Ballard Ave. Nw,#2, Seattle, WA 98107 Ph; (206) 264-0643 Fax: (206) 237-8555 SF-01804 PRR-2011-00450 l\J LA -lbreferenced by the Defendant as PD7-309, is hereby dismissed with prejudice and without costs or attorney fees to either party. DATED this da;D?I} 1 5 2010 ,2010. whadg/Conunissioner 2 Presented by: WASHINGTON ATTORNEY OFFICE Robert M. McKenna, Attorney General .- I SARA J. VITTORIO, WSBA #33003 Attorney for Defendant KAHRS LAW FIRM, P.S. |fZ@KAHRS, WSBA 27085 DATE Attorney for Plaintiff STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL 2 Kahrs Law A (08-2-10313-7) 5215 Ballard Ave. Nw, seame, WA 98107 Ph: (206) 264-0643 Fax: (206) 237-8555 mkahrs@kahrslawtirm.com SF-01805 PRR-2011-00450 at i aai?rara gf if '07 APR -A P11 146 lflbinif; fir# if STATE OF WASHINGTON GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ALLAN PARMELEE, NO. 06-2-00518-6 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION OR DOCUMENTS WITHHELD BY v. DEFENDANT DOUG WADDINGTON, Defendant. Plaintiff having filed a Motion for Documents Withheld by Defendant Waddington in this matter, and the Court being fully advised and having examined the records and files herein, does hereby find and ORDER: li. Plaintiff?s Motion for Documents Withheld by Defendant Waddington is 2. All briefing related to this motion is hereby sealed; and ORDER on MOTION Foa 1 OPWASHINGTON nocorvianfrs WITHHELD BY Je i\i,i11 nf. wa cse>-2-00878-5 (Clallam County Super. Ct., Wash. Nov. 2, 2006); and Dep't of Carr. v. Parmelee, No. 06-2-0l406~2 (Thurston County Super. Ct., Wash. Jan. 29, 2007). In all three cases, Parmeiee argues that the superior courts erred in tinding DOC employee photographs excluded from the PRA under its privacy exemption. In addition, 3 SF-01822 PRR-2011 00450 Consol. Nos. 35561-2-II 36933-8-II Parmelee argues in Mathieu v. Parmeleel that he did not have a meaningful opportunity to participate in the injunction proceedings and that the trial court erred in finding DOC employment records categorically exempt from disclosure under the PRA. In DeLong v. Department of Correctfonsf Parmelee argues that the injunction action should be dismissed because he was not joined as a necessary party or allowed to intervene, and he challenges the trial court's decision to take judicial notice ofthe facts in Mathieu v. Parmelee. ln Department of Corrections v. Parmeleef Parmelee contends that the trial court improperly considered his intended use of the employee photographs in determining whether they were subject to disclosure, and he also argues that the PRA injunction statute, RCW 42.56.540, pennits trial courts to enjoin only the disclosure of documents that are otherwise statutorily exempt from disclosure. Parmelee now concedes that recent developments in the law have undermined his ability to obtain relief from any ofthe rulings challenged above. ANALYSIS OF ln 2009; the tegisiaaife enacted now 42.56.565 RCW 42.5e.5e5(2> auews were to enjoin the "inspection or copying of any nonexempt public record by persons serving criminal sentences in state, local, or privately operated correctional facilities" if the court finds [t]he request was made to harass or intimidate the agency or its employees; 3 Mathieu v. Parmelee (cause no. 35469-l-ll). 2 DeLong v. Dep "t of Corr. (cause no. 35561-2-li) (DeLong V. DOC). 3 Dep 't of Corr. v. Parmelee (cause no. 36933-8-ll) (DOC v. 4 SF-01823 PRR 2011 00450 Consol. Nos. 35561->>2-ll 36933-8~lI (ii) Fulfilling the request would likely threaten the security of correctional facilities; _Fulfilling the request would likely threaten the safety or security of staff, inmates, family members of stafli family members of other inmates, or any ot_her person; or (iv) Fultillingthe request may assist criminal activity. RCW Courts may "enjoin all or any part of a request" for public records in the above quoted circumstances, and they also may enjoin future requests by the same requestor for a reasonable period of time. RCW Burr v. Deplt 0fCorrecz'i0ns, 168 Wr1.2d 828, 837 n.9, 231 P.3d 191 (2010), An agency is not liable for PRA penalties while an injunction under this statute is in effect, including the time it is under appeal, regardless of the appeal's outcome. RCW The legislature added a provision to RCW 42.56.565 that took effect on July 22, 2011. LAWS OF 2011, ch. 300, 1. This new provision bars an award of penalties under RCW 42.56.550(4) to a person serving a criminal sentence in a state, local, or privately operated correctional facility on the date of the public records request "unless the court finds that agency acted in bad faith in denying the person the opportunity to inspect or copy a public record." In a second section of the bill, the legislature noted, "This act applies to all actions brought under RCW 42.56.550 in which iinal judgment has not been entered as of the effective date of this section." LAWS OF 2011, ch. 300, 2. RCW 42.56.550(4) otherwise requnes trial courts to impose penalties for PRA violations. Kitsap Cy. Prosecuting Attorney Guild v. Kitsap Cozmly, 156 Wn. App. 110, 118, 231 P.3d 219 (2010). On November 13, 2009, the Thurston County Superior Court granted DOC, the Attorney General's Office (AGO), and other state agencies a five-year injunction against Parmclee under 5 SF-01824 PRR 2011 00450 Consol. Nos. 35469-l -II 35561 -2-II 36933-8-II RCW 42.56.5654 The court enjoined Pannelee "from inspecting, copying, or receiving records not yet provided to him that are responsive to any and all PRA requests he has submitted to the or any other agency ofthe State of Washington." Suppl. Br. of Appellant, Ex. A, at ll. Under the injunction, no state agency has an obligation under the PRA "to further search for, preserve, or in any other Way process records responsive to Mr. Parmelee's PRA requests, including all requests submitted to the and as ofthe date of this Order." Suppl. Br. of Appellant, Ex. A, at 12. Although the injunction prevents Parmeiee from inspecting, copying, or receiving records responsive to his pending requests, it states that it does not resolve the injunction's effect on claims for statutory penalties and/or costs pending in other superior or appellate court actions between the parties. DOC contends that the 2009 injunction renders this case moot. A case is moot when it involves only ahstract principles or questions, the substantive questions in the trial court no longer exist, or a court can no longer provide effective relietf Spokane Research Def Fund v. Ciijl ofSpokar1e, 155 Wn.2d 89, 99, 117 P.3d (2005). Parmelee appears to concede that the ?u`bsta?ritive' issues' 'l1?"rIaises" are" rr106t,"` aS"he states' that "'vacating 'the "injunction" 'in"DOC"v; Parmelee and renianding the case for further proceedings likely Will not result in DOC being required to produce copies of the employee [identitication] photos W. Parmelee requested." 4 Parmeiec attaches a copy ofthe Thurston County order to _his brief but has not made it part of the record in this case. We take judicial notice of the order under RAP 7.3 (granting appellate courts authority to perform all acts necessary or appropriate to secure the fair and orderly review of a case). We have no record of an appeal from this order. 9 6 SF-01825 PRR 2011 00450 Consol. Nos. 85469-l~ll 35561-2-ll 36933-8~lI Suppl. Br. of Appellant at 7~8 11.1.5 I-le argues, however, that a remand is required so that the trial court may determine the penalties and fees to which he is entitled under the PRA. But if Parmelee is not entitled to the DOC records he requests, he is not entitled to penalties. The PRA requires a patty to show that he has the right to obtain the requested records to recover penalties under RCW and the 2009 injunction bars Parmelee from obtaining DOC records. Yakima County v. Yakima HeraZd~RepubZic, 170 Wn.2d 775, 809, 246 P.3d 768 (20l1). Furthermore, the recent amendment to RCW 42.56.565(l) bars an inmate's recovery of penalties unless the agency acted in had faith. The 2009 injunction preventing the production of the same documents Parmelee seeks here shows that the DOC did not deny disclosure in bad faith, thereby foreclosing his recovery of penalties under the PRA. Although We have previously stated that disclosure is a prerequisite for an award of attorney fees under RCW we qualify that statement here. See City of Lakewood v. Koenig, 160 Wn. App. 883, 896, 250 P.3d 113 (201 E). RCW 42.56.550(4) provides that [a]ny person who prevaiis against an agency in any action in the courts seeking the right to inspect or copy any public record or the right to receive a response to apublic record"request`within a`reasonable"an1ount`oi` time shallbe 'awarded all" costs, including reasonable attorney fees, incurred in connection with such legal action. In addition, it shall be within the discretion of the court to award such person an amount not to exceed one hundred dollars for each day that he or she was denied the right to inspect or copy said public record. Under the first sentence of this provision, costs and attorney fees may be awarded for vindicating "'the right to inspect or copy"' or "'tl1e right to receive a response." Yakima County, 170 Wn.2d at 809 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Sanders v. Stare, 169 Wn.2d 827, 860, 240 P.3d 120 (2010)) By contrast, penalties are authorized only for improper 5 The Washington Coalition for Open Government agrees in its amicus brief that the Thurston County injunction will prevent Parmelee from obtaining the records he seeks in this case. 7 SF-01826 PRR 2011 00450 Consol Nos, 35469-l-Il 35561-2-ll 36933-841 denials of the "right to inspect or copy," as specified in the second sentence of RCW Sanders, l69 Wn.2d at 860. ln Yakima County, the newspaper was entitled to costs and fees because the county was equivocal about its possession of responsive records and, instead of identifying those records, forced the paper to .tile a court action. 170 Wn.2d at 809. In Sanders, the State's failure to provide a brief explanation ofthe claimed exemptions added to the fees and costs imposed, 169 Wn.2d at 848. Parmelee complained in the Mathieu v. Parmelee case that DOC's response to his PRA request Was tmtimely, incomplete, and evasive. This is the only one of the three consolidated cases in which he tiled a PRA complaint. On appeal, Pannelee does not complain about the timing or content of DOC's response; his complaint concerns DOC's failure to disclose the records he requested because of the trial court's permanent injunction. Consequently, we need not remand for the determination of either costs or penalties, as neither award is justified here. Because the Thurston County injunction entered under RCW 42.56.565 prevents us from granting Pannelee the relief he seeks as a matter of law, We dismiss this appeal as moot.6 /q 0 INN-BRINTNALL, J. We concur: 9 4~ TRONG, J. J.P.T. 6 This resolution renders unnecessary any discussion of Seattle Times. 8 SF-01827 PRR 2011 00450 . "`L1`s IV gba I IIQfhfif IA ig-.ef . .E ii IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II LT. DELONG, SGT. AHRENS, SGT. MCHAFFIE, SGT. BICK, SGT. FOULKES, SGT. BANNER, SGT. BLANKENSI-IIP, SGT. MATHIEU, PADGETT, REAMES, JUDD, SANDNESS, CORNISH Respondents, V. INMATE PARMALEE, ALLAN DOC #793782, I Appellanf, v. KAREN BRUNS HAROLD CLARKE, Resp ondents. T. DELONG, D. AHRENS, J. MCHAEFIE, R. FOULKES, G. BANNER, K. BANNER, R. BLANKENSHIP, R. PADGETT, N. CORNISH, M. DEDMAN, S. DHMMEL, G. SANDNESS, K. MCRENNEY, E. RICHARDSON, O. RIDDLE, P. RIDDLE, G. OLEKAS, JR., L. LAVOIE, S. WEED, G. NEWTON, J. ERNST, V. ATTWOOD, S. MILSTEAD, S. TOOHEY, E. ROMERO, C. ROEN1NG, D. HEAWARD, E. DAOUS, L. No. 35469-1 -II (Consolidated with 35561-2-II and 36933-8-II) PUBLISHED OPINION SF-01828 PRR-2011-00450 Consol. Nos. 35561-2-II SCROGGINS, D. TRACY, D. WINTERS, C. NESBITT, R. C. HATT, B. HATT, B. PEDERSON, J. SMITH, J. MASON, B. MCGARVIE, K. MCTARSNEY, V. ADAMS, E. LEVERINGTON, J. REYES, L. SHEPHERD, C. RITTER, SR., S. VOGTMAN, B. MGLEAN, R. CHRISTENSEN, M. CHRISTENSEN, A. MOSELEY, C. CU GTON, T. GERMEAU, J. PALMER, J. IVEY, M. ERLENMEYER, M. KERRONE, J. BERRY, J. KUYKENDALL, K. RUSSELL, G. EPLING, R. LEONARD, J. PEARSON, T. PERRY, D. WEAVER, K. BOWEN, L. WACHENDORP, C. PRIESZ, A. SANDE, J. WASANKAM, S. HENDERSON, G. BELLAMY, J. AKIN, F. AMSDILL, R. ARMACOST, A. BOE, R. CASE, J. IDES, D. BUCHMANN, M. CUMMINGS, S. CUMMINGS, V. BUTTRAM, T. ESI-IOM, J. NAGY, G. NICHOLAS JR., T. JEROME, W. KEYS, S. SCHWENKER, H. SCHWENKER, B. SPRAGUE, M. SWISHER, R. CAULKINS, S. BROWN, D. DELEON JR., D. I-IARKINS, A. MILLER, A. DAVIS, J. WASNOCK, J. KETTEL, J. THAYER, C. BONE, M. SUKERT, R. NEIUKOOP, P. BLANTON, A. I-IESS, R. CURRINGTON, D. TABER, D. TEACHOUT, P. TEACHOUT, L. ADAMIRE, P. HEADLEY, C. TOVVNE, T. MCNAUGHTON, C. LARA, R. BINGHAM, G. SUKERT, E. REETZ, C. KLOCK, D. NORMAN, R. BROUSSARD, H. MULLEN, R. SCHIMETZ, N. PENCE, H. LEE, R. STEVENS, and H. NGUYEN, Respondents, v. DEPARTMENT OP CORRECTIONS OP THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, 2 SF-01829 PRR-2011-00450 Consol. Nos. 35469-l-Il 35561-2-II 36933-8-II v. ALLAN PARMELEE, A pellant. THE WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent, V. ALLAN W. PARMELEE, Appellant. VQUINN-BRINTNALL, J. This appeal concerns three separate decisions' of the Clallarn and Thurston County Superior Courts regarding public disclosure requests that Allan Parrnelee made under the Public Records Act (PRA), ch. 42.56 RCW. ln all three cases, Parmelee argues that the superior courts erred when they found that Department of Corrections (DOC) empioyee photographs are excluded from the PRA under the privacy exemption. In Mathieu v. Parmelee, Parmelee also argues that the superior court (1) violated his right to due process when it found that the photographs were excludable Without first affording him a meaningful opportunity to participate in the proceedings and (2) erred when it found that Sergeant Laura Mathieu'S personnel records, "critical" employment records, intelligence and investigation reports, and portions of her compensation records and training records were not subject to disclosure under the PRA. I Mathieu v, Parmelee (cause no. 35469-l-ll); DeLong v. Department of Corrections (DOC) (cause no. DOC v. Parmelee (cause no. 36933-8-li). 3 SF-01830 PRR-2011 00450 Consol. Nos. 35469-1-II 35561-2-Il 36933-8~lI in DeLong v. DOC, Parmelee further argues that (1) the petitioners' action should be dismissed because they failed to join him as a necessary party under CR 19(a), (2) the superior court erred when it refused Parme1ee's request to intervene under CR 24, and (3) the superior court erred when it took judicial notice ofthe facts from Mathieu v. Parmelee in the DeLong v. DOC proceedings. In DOC v. Parmelee, Parmelee contends that (1) the superior court improperly considered his proposed use of employee photographs when determining whether the documents were subject to disclosure under the PRA, (2) his intended use of the photographs cannot create a privacy right in the named DOC employees, and (3) the PRA's injunction statute, RCW 42.56.540, only permits the examination of a specific public record if that public record is otherwise exempt. I The PRA mandates that public records "shall" be available for public inspection and copying unless the record is specifically exempt from disclosure. RCW The PRA statute' does exempt 'from disclosure documents that, if released, would constitute an unreasonable invasion of privacy, RCW 42.56.050, . and specific intelligence, _information compiled by law investigative, law enforcement, and penology agenciesithat is essential to effective law enforcement or for the protection of any person's right to privacy. Former RCW 42.56.240 (2005). In addition, the PRA provides that a triai court may enjoin the examination of a specitic public record if the examination would (1) clearly not be in the public interest, (2) substantially and irreparably damage any person, or (3) substantially and irreparably damage vital goverrnnent functions. RCW 42.56.540. As an initial matter, in light of the plain language of the PRA, our Supreme Court's analysis in Livingston v. Cedeno, 164 Wn.2d 46, 186 P.3d 1055 (2008), and the fact that the 5 SF-01831 PRR-2011 00450 Conso1.Nos. 36933-8-ll legislature has declined to narrow the definition of those who may access public records under the PRA, we are constrained to hold that prison inmates, including those blatantly abusing the PRA, have standing to request records under the Because the appellate record here is insufficient for us to do otherwise, we presume for purposes of this appeal only that the photographs DOC prepared to give Parmelee in response to his PRA request are public records relating to the conduct of government or proprietary function. And, despite DOC's argument to the contrary, We hold that in this case an individual's identification badge photograph is not exempt from disclosure under the privacy exemption because it is not the type of intimate, personal information the PRA intended to protect. But while Parmelee is correct that the PRA prohibits DOC from considering an- individual's status as an inmate when determining if information is subject to disclosure under the PRA, we hold that a trial court may consider a PRA requestor's explicit and volunteered threat when deciding whether to grant a government employee's personal request for an injunction. In Mathieu v. Parmelee, although the triai cotut did not violate Parmelee's right to due process, it erred. that Mathieuis personnel records, intelligence ,andinvestigation reports, and portions of her compensation records and training records Were not subject to disclosure under the PRA. Mathieu's personnel records and her intelligence and investigation reports are subject to disclosure if they contain specific instances of misconduct. Mathieu's training records are also subject to disclosure unless they fall under a specific exemption. And information about a public employee's compensation, including vacation and sick leave pay, is 2 We note that on March 20, 2009, our legislature passed Substitute SB. 5l30, 6lst Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2009), codified at RCW 42.56.565, effective March 20, 2009, which specifically addresses access to nonexempt public records by prison inmates. LAWS OF 2009, ch. 10, l. 5 SF-01832 PRR-2011 00450 Consol. Nos. 35561-2-II subject to disclosure. Because our record does not contain the _documents DOC compiled for Parmelee regarding Mathieu, remand is necessary to allow the trial court to review in camera the documents regarding personnel records, intelligence and investigation reports, and training records and determine whether Parmelee is entitled to these records. In DeLong v. DOC, while Parmelee's request to intervene was properly denied as untimely, the trial court erred when it refused to join Parmelee as a necessary party because his participation was necessary to protect his interests under the PRA. And because the issues in Mathieu v. Parmelee and DeLong v. DOC, as well as the evidence on which the petitioners relied, was identical, the trial court did not err when it took judicial notice in DeLong v. DOC of the documentary evidence in Mathieu v. Parmelee. Accordingly, as to Mathieu v. Parmelee, we are constrained to reverse the injunction against Parmelee because Mathieu was not named in his counterfeit sexual predator flyer and is unable to demonstrate that she was the victim of this explicit and volunteered threat. As to DeLong v. DOC, we must vacate for want of jurisdiction for failure to join Parmelee as a necessary party and remand to the trial ,court,- Like Mathieu v. Parmelee, those DOC. ,employees not named in Parmelee's counterfeit sexual predator flyer are not entitled to an injunction, but those DOC employees who were subject to this threat are entitled to injunctive relief. Thus, we remand all three cases to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. FACTS BACKGROUND Parmelee is a Washington State inmate currently in the custody of DOC. Parmelee has written several books, including How to Win Prison Disciplinary Hearings, as Well as numerous 6 SF-01833 PRR-2011 00450 Consol. Nos. 35469-1-il 35561-2~Il 36933-8-II articles for national publications such as Prison Legal News and 'Prison Living. Parmelee frequently requests public records, ostensibly pertaining to his writing projects and activist Work. In 2004, a jury found Parmelee guilty of two counts of first degree arson for the fire- bombing of two automobiles belonging to attorneys opposing him in two separate civil legal actions. Parmelee fire-bombed the automobiles at the attorneys' respective residences. Prior to the first attack, Parmelee posted the attorneys' home addresses on a Website he created to complain about court rulings in his custody and dissolution dispute with the victim's client, Parmelee's former wife. On that Website, Parmelee "invited" other disgruntled fathers to pay the attorney victim "a visit." Clerlc's Papers (CP) (Mathieu) at 324. In addition, Parmelee's first criminal trial on the arson charges resulted in a mistrial because the superior court discovered that Parmelee possessed materials with discrete personal information about the jurors who had been impaneled. The trial court found that Parmelee had secreted this information in direct violation of a superior court order that he not retain any information on jurors. After the jury found him guilty, Parmelee expressed extreme hostility judge and the judge's photograph from the.Washington State Bar Association. Parmelee has written several letters to DOC staff stating that he intends to misuse information that he receives about DOC staff. He has also made comments that DOC staff have interpreted as thinly veiled threats against them and their families. On July 20, 2005, Parrnelee Wrote a letter to DOC Secretary Harold Clarke in which he referred to former Clallam Bay Correctional Center (CBCC) Superintendent Sandra Carter as an "anti-male . . . lesbian," and Associate Superintendent John Aldana as an "antagonist." CP (Mathieu) at 327. Parmelee went on to state that "[h]aving a man-hater lesbian as a 7 SF-01834 PRR-2011 00450 Consol. Nos. 35469-I-II 36933-8-II superintendent is like throwing gas on already smouldering [sic] fire." CP (Mathieu) at 327 (alteration in original). Parmelee asked Clarke for his "thoughts on this so [Parmelee could] conclude a series of media releases [he had] planned about CP (Mathieu) at 327. On October 8, 2005, Parmelee wrote a letter to Carter, which stated, I have initiated investigators to possibly interview your neighbors, photograph your home and conduct a detailed due diligence into -any actual or potential parties or witnesses to lawsuits. Some of the information will be interpreted and posted on the internet to make it easier for others to sue you people also, and to let the public know what type of people their taxes pay. . . I already have some of your home addresses (for a dollar each) and now await the video and photographs. You Want to conduct yourselves like official crooks, [sic] you deserve the publicity that comes with it. 'nfs This letter is not intended to threaten, intimidate or coerce anyone. lt is intended to simply put you on notice so you won't jump to the wrong conclusion - . when you see a photographer or video camera operator around yours [sic] or your staff' homes. I CP (Mathieu) at 81-82. - On March 19, 2006, CBCC staff confiscated a letter from Parmelee's cell addressed to Maxwell Tomlinson of Max Investigations. In that letter, Parmelee referred to past and future ml'2lE11ilS ing' staff members' harass iflaicaiag' 5 9 "I'll have to call through another as We've done before. As usual bill me through the usual source, up to $2,000.00 per lot that I will pre-approve." CP (Mathieu) at 328. Parmelee went on to state that "[s]everal -prison staff are defendants in lawsuits and I want them followed and photographed, and all the public records you can find, including SS's, DC's, and vehicle licenses, codes and pictures of them, their homes, and vehicles." CP (Mathieu) at 328. Parmelee identified 20 DOC employees he wanted Tomlinson to follow. He then went on to state, I also propose that when we get ready to move forward, that your material not only be posted on the internet for other prisoners to access, but to hire some legal 8 SF-01835 PRR-2011 00450 Consol. Nos. 35469-l-ll 35561-2-ll 36933-8-ll . talent to enforce security and to prevent these inbred bullies from causing too much more trouble. Be careful, as we're dealing with people Whose thought processes are defective and base. You may need a few bullies of your own. CR-4 service will be required. CP (Mathieu) at 328. On July 9, 2006, Parmelee wrote another letter to Carter informing her that he had hired picketers to picket the homes of DOC employees, He stated that he had hired individuals for $2,000.00 per Weekend to picket peacefully [outside] some DOC staff' residences and hand out information brochures about DOC employees to the neighbors These pickets are planned for Olympia DOC people Whom [sic] may be in the dark about what's going on here and how bad things really are. They are also planned to occur at your CBCC staffs residences, which one(s) and when will not be revealed until a day or so in advance to the media. CP (Mathieu) at 328-29. On July ll, 2006, Parmelee received a serious infraction at CBCC when he handed a DOC employee a mock-up of a flyer containing the names of several DOC staff members. Parmelee told the employee, "These are the flyers that I am having printed and passed out tomorrow and if you don't stay out of it your dead bitch Will be on one of them." CP (Mathieu) at329_ _t _t . . . The flyer Parmelee gave the correctional officer is entitled PRBDITORS [sic] IN YOUR and lists the names of six DOC employees? CP (Mathieu) at 91. Above each DOC employee's name is a rough outline of a picture of that individual with "insert actual photos here as designated" Written across one of the sketches. CP (Mathieu) at 91. The flyer states in relevant part, 3 The employees named in the flyer are Robert O'Neel, Carrol Riddle, Nathan Cornish, Jerry McHaffie, Michael Christensen, and Carter. 9 SF-01836 PRR-2011-00450 Consol. Nos. 35469-1-Il 35561-2-ll 36933~8-Ii These sexual preditors [sic] . . . work at the Clallam Bay prison Where homosexual assaults are encouraged against prisoners by Sandra Carter, the gay feminist superintendent. Protect Your Families and Children. Demand The Fire These People Now Before You Become Their Next Victim. CP (Mathieu) at 348. From July 2004_to August 2006, Parmelee submitted 95 public disclosure requests to In total, DOC claims that Parmelee has submitted over 400 public records requests to DOC. A. MA THIEU PARMEUJE l. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE REQUEST On March 16, 2006, Parmelee submitted a public disclosure request to DOC. Parmelee requested a number of documents regarding Mathieu, including her photograph, (2) performance reviews for the previous tive' years, (3) compensation records, (4) "critical" employment records for the previous seven years, (5) administrative grievances and internal investigation records for the past tive years, and (6) DOC sponsored training programs. Parmelee requested identical information regarding nine other DOC employees. Parmelee mailed the request to Denise Larson, a CBCC employee. She received the letter on March 17, 2006. On March 22, 2006, Within tive days of receiving Parmeiee's request, Larson responded as required by former RCW 42.56.520 (1995). Larson informed Parmelee that it would take approximately 21 business days to gather the documents he requested and that she would contact him if DOC needed more time to complete the request. 10 SF-01837 PRR-2011-00450 consei. NOS. On April 19, 2006, Parmelee submitted a supplemental request to his March 16, 2006 public disclosure request for information regarding three additional DOC employees. Parmelee mailed this request to Larson as well, and she received it on April 28, 2006. On May 1, 2006, Larson responded to Parmelee's second request, again in compliance with former RCW 42/56.520, In her response, Larson informed Parmelee that she would add his second request to his March 16, 2006 request, per his instruction. Larson also indicated that it would take approximately 21 additional business days to gather the new documents requested. On May 24, 2006, CBCC employee Pamela Riddle notified Parmelee in Writing that she would respond to his March 16, 2006 public disclosure request within -14 business days after May 31, 2006. On June 21, 2006, Denise Vaughan, a Public Disclosure Specialist employed by DOC, notified Parmelee that DOC had gathered the documents responsive to his March 16, 2006 public disclosure request.4 Vaughan also informed Parmelee that the DOC employees affected by his request were being notified that DOC was disclosing these documents to Parmelee. Lastly, Vaughan notifiedParme1ee that, because she was notifying the affected-DOC,-employees, she would Contact him again within 30 business days, August 3, 2006. . 4 The record does not include a copy of the packet DOC prepared for Parmelee in response to his PRA request nor were the documents reviewed by the superior court. 11 SF-01838 PRR-2011 00450 causal. NOS. 35469-l-ll 35561-2-n 3693 3-8-11 2. MATH1EU's PETITION Fon INJUNCTIVE Reuse On July l9, 2006, Mathieu5 tiled a petition and motion for injunctive relief. On the same day, the superior court entered a temporary restraining order, preventing DOC from disclosing the records Parmelee had requested. In response, on August 18, 2006, Parmelee tiled a "Third Party Verified Complaint for Public Disclosure Act Violations," in which he named CBCC Superintendent Karen Brunson and Clarke as defendants. CP (Mathieu) at 356. Parmelee sought an order compelling DOC to disclose his requested records and asked for penalties and fees under Row 42.56.55o.6 After July 19, 2006, Vaughan repeatedly notified Parmelee per the time frames in her letters that she could not release the documents responsive to the March 16, 2006 request because of the entry and subsequent extensions ofthe July 19, 2006 temporary restraining order. On August 22, 2006, DOC submitted an answer to Parmelee's third party complaint, stating that it had acted in good faith in response to his public disclosure requests and asked that the superior court dismiss his complaint. DOC also submitted a brief in support of Mathieu's petition, arguingathat the A-superior ,court -could grant Mathieu injunctive relief. inlight .of Parmelee's history of harassing behavior, regardless ofthe applicability of any exemptions under the PRA. 5 Although the petition also named the 12 other DOC employees as parties to the action, only Mathieu signed the petition and, thus, she is the only petitioner on appeal. Several of the remaining employees later became some ofthe petitioners in the DeLong v. DOC matter. 6 Under RCW "Any person who prevails against an agency in any action in the courts seeking the right to inspect or copy any public record . . shall be awarded all costs, including reasonable attorney fees, incurred in connection with such legal action." 12 SF-01839 PRR-2011 00450 Consol. Nos. 35469-l->>ll 35561~2-li 36933-8-H On September 27, 2006, Vaughan notified Parmelee that copies of documents responsive tothe March 16, 2006 public disclosure request were available. On October 23, 2006, DOC moved for summary judgment and dismissal of Parmelee's third party complaint, arguing that DOC had not violated the PRA because it had gathered the requested documents but then could not deliver the documents to Parmelee because of the superior court's temporary restraining order. On October 24, 2006, the superior court entered a permanent injunction, enjoining the DOC from releasing documents relating to Mathieu, except for her training records for 24 months prior to Parmelee's request, and records regarding her pay grade and pay scale. The superior court reasoned that a permanent injunction was appropriate because disclosure Would violate Mathieu's right to privacy under RCW 42.56.050, which exempts disclosure when it would be (1) highly offensive to a reasonable person and (2) not in the public interest? Specifically, the superior court found that "[t]he privacy exemption . . . would preclude a requirement to provide photos of individual staff members [because e]rnployment as a corrections officer does not nor. does the public need -to specific facial characteristics of DOC employees." CP (Mathieu) at 104. The superior court Went on to find that Mathieu's performance records Were exempt under prior case law but that her "[c]ompensation records [Were] discloseable if they relate to pay grade and information in general related to compensation under a particular pay grade,"but that "[s]pecific deductions, itemizations and the like . . . are not required to be disclosed." CP (Mathieu) at 104. The superior court found that Parmelee's request for "critical" employment 7 It did not analyze privacy rights Mathieu may have under Wash. Const. art. 1, 7. 13 SF-01840 PRR-2011 00450 Consol. Nos. 35469-1-Il 35561-2-II 36933-8-II records was overly vague. The superior court also found that Parmelee's request for Mathieu's training records was somewhat vague but that a list of Mathieu's specialized training was discloseable for a period of 24 months prior to Parme1ee's request. Moreover, the superior court found that Parmelee's request for administrative grievances as well as intelligence and investigation records violated the law enforcement exemption because they are investigations into the conduct of specific prison staff in the performance of their law enforcement duties which would unnecessarily impact the functioning of a law enforcement agency and penal agency in the performance of its legal functions. Furthermore, the superior court found that Parmelee submitted the requests to "gather information to harass, slander, and endanger [Mathieu] and her family." CP (Mathieu) at 23. The superior court also found that the requests were "not being made to gather information about governmental functions inaccordance with the purpose of the CP (Mathieu) at 23. In addition to finding that producing the documents requested was not in the public interest, the superior court also found that "[p]roducing the documents requested by Respondent Allan and- irreparably damage .[Mathieu]; and . irreparably interfere with the vital governmental functions furthered by the CP (Mathieu) at 23. Parmelee timely appealed the superior court's permanent injunction in Mathieu v. Parmelee. B. DELUNG DOC After the superior court dismissed all CBCC personnel except Mathieu in the above action, several of the dismissed petitioners, along with numerous other CBCC personnel, filed a 14 SF-01841 PRR-2011 00450 Consol. Nos. renewed petition seeking an injunction against DOC that would prevent it from releasing any public records to Parrnelee that pertained to them. On October 10, 2006, Parmelee filed a notice of appearance and sought to intervene in the action "On Behalf Of His Unprotected Interests And [to] Replace The DOC As Defendant" CP (DeLong) at 119. Parmelee also sought in camera review of the records that DOC had compiled in response to his public disclosure request. Parmelee did not serve this pleading on the DOC and it is unclear Whether he served the motion on any of the petitioners. Furthermore, the record does not reveal Whether the motions were properly noted or confirmed according to local rulesg and it does not appear from the record before us that the superior court ever ruled on the motions. As in the Mathieu v. Parmelee case, DOC did not oppose the petitioners' motion; instead, it filed a brief in favor of the injunction and against Parmelee's attempts to intervene or join in the action. On October 12, 2006, DOC submitted the same declarations it had submitted in the Mathieu v. Parmelee case and asked the superior court to take judicial notice of 'those d9gum?ntS> ., On October 13, 2006, the superior court held a show cause hearing on the petitioners' motion. DOC's counsel informed the superior court that Parmelee had requested to appear at the hearing and stated that she objected because he was nota party to the action. The superior court declined to contact Parmelee because it did not believe that he was "necessary as a party to this action in its present configuration." Report of Proceedings (DeLong) (Oct. 13, 2006) at 6. The Clallam County Local Rule 9 These documents were tiled via facsimile and the duplicates were mistakenly tiled in the Mathieu v. Parmelee file. 15 SF-01842 PRR-2011 00450 Consol. Nos. 35469-1-IU 35561-2-Il 36933-8-Il superior court then heard extensive argument from two of the petitioners, detailing Parmelee's harassment of DOC personnel. On October 23 and 24, 2006, the superior cotut entered two virtually identical written orders granting petitioners' motion for a permanent injunction, using reasoning identical to that in the Mathieu v. Parmelee case: the order only allowed DOC to release public records related to the petitioners' pay grade and pay scale, as well as training records for the 24 months immediately preceding Parmelee's request. On November 6, 2006,'0 Parmelee renewed his motion to intervene and for in camera review of the records. The superior court denied the motion as tmtimely because it believed that Parmelee had a fair and full opportunity to litigate the issues in the Mathieu v. Parmelee matter. On November 3, 2006, the superior court held another hearing to add the names of 55 additional DOC employees to the permanent injunction. On December 15, 2006, the superior court entered an order in response to a motion for claritication from the aities in which it defined ersonal information" as "information pertaining to a staff person's home, property, livelihood, physical body, character and/or family." CP (DeLong) at' 15. Parmelee timely appealed the permanent injunction entered in DeLong v. DOC. C. DOC tm PARMELEE From February 2005 to July 2006, Parmelee requested electronic photographic images of over 2,525 DOC employees. Some of the l3 separate requests were for photographic images of 10 Although the signature block on Parmelee's motion to intervene is dated October 25, 2006, it was not filed until November 6, 2006. l6 SF-01843 PRR-2011 00450 Consol. Nos. 35469-1-11 35561-2-Il 36933-8-11 specific employees and some were for groups, such as "all staff" at a particular correctional smiley." or at 29. DOC did not ask Parmelee why he requested the photographs. But on July 11, 2006, Parmelee had a conversation with a staff member at CBCC in which he explained .that he intended to use the photographs on flyers labeling the employees as "sexual preditors [sic]" that he had prepared and planned to disseminate. 12 CP (DOC) at 63. On August 1, 2006, DOC filed a petition in Thurston Cotmty Superior Court in which it requested that the court enjoin the disclosure of the photographic images of DOC staff that Parmelee had requested. . On November 28, 2006, While the case was pending, Parmelee sent a letter to Mark Kuzca, Associate Superintendent of the Washington State Penitentiary. ln the letter, Parmelee stated that he would be producing flyers labeling DOC employees as "homosexual predators" and included a sample flyer. CP (DOC) at 193. On December 1, 2006, the superior court heard the DOC's motion for a permanent i-njunotionand issued anworder granting that injunction on January 19, 2007=>>= he--.superiors court found that the photographic images Parmelee sought were exempt because disclosure would violate the employees' right to privacy Linder RCW 42.56.050 based on Parmelee's intended use and, as a result, enjoined disclosure of the 2,525 photographs under RCW 42.56.540 Parmelee timely appealed the superior court's permanent injunction in DOC v. Parmelee. i In these requests, Parmelee also asked for documents containing other specific information regarding DOC staff members, but those requests are not related to this particular litigation. li 12 These are the same flyers discussed in greater detail above. 17 i SF-01844 PRR-2011 00450 Consol. Nos. 35561 ~2-11 36933-8-II ANALYSIS We requested that the Washington State Attorney General submit supplemental briefing addressing (1) Whether an individual who has forfeited his right to vote by having been convicted of a felony has standing to request documents under the (2) whether government employees' badge identification photographs are public records, subject to disclosure under the and (3) to what extent government employees' performance reviews, training records, compensation records, administrative grievances, internal investigation records, and records defined bythe requestor here as "critical employment records" are subjectto disclosure under the PRA. A STANDARD or REVIEW A We review injunctions issued under the PRA de novo. Dragonslayer, Inc. v. Washington State Gambling Comm 139 Wn. App. 433, 441, 161 P.3d 428 (2007) (citing Spokane Police Guild v. Liquor Control Bd., 112 Wn.2d 30, 35, 769 P.2d 283 (l989)). Where the record consists only of affidavits, memoranda of law, and other documentary evidence, We stand in the same posi-tionas the superiorcourt and arernot bound by the superior courtfs .factual .findings on disputed facts. Progressive Animal Web'are Soc'y v. Univ. of Wash., 125 Wn.2d 243, 252-53, 592 (1994) (PAWS). The PRA mandates that public records "shall" be available for public inspection and copying unless the record is specifically exempt from disclosure. RCW The PRA is a "'stronly worded mandate for broad disclosure of public records" and should be "liberally construed to promote full access to public records, and its exemptions are to be narrowly construed." Al"f'll'EURl'l v. City of Kalarna, l3l Wn.2d 25, 31, 929 P.2d 389 (1997) (quoting PA WS, 125 at 251). is SF-01845 PRR-2011 00450 Conso1.Nos. 35561-2-H 36933-8-II STANDING In its amicus brieiiw the Attorney General argues that incarcerated felons possess diminished legal rights that are inconsistent with the right to request records under the PRA. Specifically, the Attorney General argues that the PRA does not extend to incarcerated felons because "[u]nder the common law and article VI, section 3 of the Washington [State] Constitution, incarcerated felons lose their civil rights, and may neither vote nor hold public office," and "are subject to the comprehensive control of the Secretary of the Department of Corrections." Br. of Amicus Curiae Attorney General at 1-2. For these reasons, and because the purpose of the PRA is to protect the interests of the sovereign people of Washington in maintaining control over their government, the Attorney'General argues inmates fall outside of the scope of the PRA. However sensible the stated policy, the plain language ofthe PRA does not permit such a ruling. A Although inmates have successfully brought suits under the PRA, Washington courts have not addressed whether inmates actually have standing to request documents under the PRA in>>-light of their limitedrights~fol>>loWing i ncarcerationw State Depft of Corn, Wn.2d 231 P.3d 191 (2010); Livingston, 164 Wn.2d at 50; Scappenjield v. Dept ofC0rr., 127 Wn. App. 83, 110 P.3d 808 (2005), review denied, 156 Wn.2d 1013 (2006). While inmates retain due process rights and the right to access the courts,l4 inmates do not retain all of the other rights a free citizen would have, such as the right to vote, freedom of 13 We also granted the Washington Coalition for Open Government's and the American Civil Liberties Union of Washington/Columbia Legal Services' requests to tile amicus briefs in response to that submitted by the Attorney General. 14 But even this right is limited. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 355, 116 S. Ct. 2174, 135 L. Ed. 2d 606 (1996) (concluding an inmate's ability to access the courts "does not guarantee 19 SF-01846 PRR-2011 00450 Consol. Nos. 35469-1-Il 35561-2-II 36933-8-ll association, or freedom of speech. In re Pers. Restraint of Addleman, 139 Wn.2d 751, 754, 991 P.2d 1123 (2000) (inmates retain their right to access the courts); In re Pers. Restraint of Matteson, 142 Wn.2d 298, 309-10, 12 P.3d 585 (2000) (inmates retain their right to due process); Madison v. State, 161 Wn.2d 85, 110, 163 P.3d 757 (2007) (Washington disenfranchisement of convicted felons is constitutional); State v. Warren, 134 Wn. App. 44, 71, 138 P.3d 1081 (2006) (imnates' freedom of association may be restricted to the extent reasonably necessary to accomplish the essential needs of the State and public order), a]j"d, 165 Wn.2d 17, 195 P.3d 940 (2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2007 (2009); Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union, Inc., 433 U.S. 119, 129, 97 S. Ct. 21532, 53 L, Ed. 2d 629 (1977) (inmates retain those First Amendment rights that are consistent with his status as a prisoner or with the legitimate penological objectives of the corrections system). Inmates' rights and privileges are subject to limitation because institutional goals and policies take precedence over their individual interests. State v. Rainford, 86 Wn. App. 431, 436, 936 P.2d 1210 (citing State v. Hartzog, 96 Wn.2d 383, 391, 635 P.2d 694 (1981)) review denied, 133 Wn.2d 1019 (1997); cf Prison Legal News, Inc. vi Depft 628, 649, 115 P.3d 316 (2005) (investigations by DOC intod medical misconduct by prison medical staff do not fall under the "law enforcement" exemption of the PRA and are subject to disclosure). The policy behind the PRA is that "free and open examination of public records is in the public interest." RCW As a result, the PRA preserves the most central tenets of inmates the Wherevvithal to transform themselves into litigating engines capable of tiling everything from shareholder derivative actions to slip-and-fall An imnate's right of meaningful access to the courts may be limited by the court if he abuses that right. Cello- Whitney v. Hoover, 769 F. Supp. 1155 (W.D. Wash. 1991); see also In re Matter of Hardord Textile Corp., 681 F.2d 895 (2nd Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1206 (1983) (injunction issued against continuance of frivolous and vexatious litigation affirmed). 20 SF-01847 PRR-2011 00450 Consol. Nos. 35469-1-ll/ 35561-2~Il representative government, namely the sovereignty of the people and the accountability to the people of public officials and institutions. See former RCW 42.56.040 (1973); King County v. Sheehan, 114 Wn. App. 325, 335, 57 P.3d 307 (2002) (citing PA WS, 125 Wn.2d at 251). The PRA allows individuals to make informed decisions in their government and "maintain control over the instruments that they have created" by casting their votes accordingly. See former RCW 42.56.030 (2005). And the PRA's "declaration of policy" states that "full access to information concerning the conduct of government . . . must be assured as a fundamental and necessary precondition to the sound governance of a free society." RCW But as the Attorney General points out, inmates such as Parmelee have relinquished their right to vote by engaging in criminal activity and, as a result, forfeited the right to participate in "maintain[ing] control over [their government]." Former RCW 42.56.030. In order to determine whether prison inmates have the right to request records under the PRA, we must look beyond the restricted rights of inmates and explore the plain language of the PRA itself to determine its scope and our legislature's intent. See Fraternal Order of Eagles, enino Aerie_N0. 5 64 v..,,Grand.Aerie #Fraternal .Order of Eagles, 148 Wn.2d.224,,239,.59.P.3d 655 (2002) (to determine legislative intent, courts must first look to the language of the statute), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1057 (2003). If the statute is unambiguous, then its meaning must be "derived from the plain language of the statute alone." Fraternal Order 0fE@les, 148 Wn.2d at 239. A statute is ambiguous if one can reasonably interpret it to have more than one meaning; a statute is not ambiguous simply because "different interpretations are conceivable." Fraternal Order 0fEagles, 148 Wn.2d at 239-40 (quoting Slate v. Keller, 143 Wn.2d 267, 276, 19 P.3d 1030 (2001), cert denied, 534 U.S. 1130 (2002)) It is a well~settled rule that "'so long as the language used is unambiguous, a departure from its natural meaning is not justified by any 2l~ SF-01848 PRR-2011 00450 Conscl. Nos. 35469-l-Il 3 556l~2~lI 36933-8-II consideration of its consequences, or of public policy."' State v. Miller, 72 Wash. 154, 158, 129 P. 1100 (1913) (quoting 36 Cyc. Statutes 1114 (l910)). Here, the PRA requires state agencies to make public records available to "any person," upon request, unless the record falls within certain specific exemptions. RCW 42.56.080; Livingston, 164 Wn.2d at 50. And the PRA specitically forbids agencies from "distinguish[ing] among persons requesting records." RCW 42.56.080; see Sheehan, 114 Wn. App. at 341 (holding that the requester's intended use of information may not be the basis of denying a request for the full names of King County police officers). Under the plain language ofthe PRA, prison inmates have standing to request records because there is no requirement that the requestor be a citizen or hold civil rights. And the statute specifically forbids intent, regardless of whether it is malicious in design, from being used to determine if records are subject to disclosure. RCW 42.56.080 Although it did not expressly hold the prisoners had standing under the PRA, in Livingston, our Supreme Court addressed the related issue of Whether DOC had complied with an incarcerated felon's public-records requestewhen the requested- material was copied sand. mailed from DOC but, when the records arrived at the correctional facility, it was confiscated as contraband under DOC's mail policy. Livingston, 164 Wn.2d at 50. Ultimately, our Supreme Court held that DOC had complied with the PRA when it copied and mailed the requested documents to the address provided by the requestor and, as a result, DOC's subsequent decision to bar the requestor from receiving the documents pursuant to its mail policy was independent of DOC's decision to provide the documents under the PRA. Livingston, 164 Wn.2d at Sl. When discussing application of PRA principles to inmates, our Supreme Court stated that zz SF-01849 PRR-2011 00450 Consol. Nos. 35469-l-ll 3-5561-2-II 36933-8-II [i]n its capacity as an agency subject to the must respond to all public disclosure requests without regard to the status or motivation of the requestor. The statutory directive to screen incoming and outgoing mail [under the DOC mail policy] does not relieve of its obligation to disclose public records requested by an inmate. Livingston, 164 Wn.2d at 53 (emphasis added). More specifically, our Supreme Court went on to say that DOC "may not deny a public records request based on the requester's status as an inmate." Livingston, 164 Wn.2d at 57. Notwithstanding the Attorney General's argument to the contrary, this language in Livingston is not merely dicta; requiring DOC to disclose public records to inmates was a ruling central to the Livingston court's analysis and required for its holding. We note that our legislature has had at least two opportunities to narrow the definition of "any person" prior to this suit. In 2000, the legislature declined to adopt HB. 2458, 56th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2000), which would have carved out an exception to the definition of "any person" by preventing disclosure of public records to prison inmates. In 2005, a bill Was introduced to reenact and amend former RCW 42.17.310 (2005). This amendment would have pr.o.hibited..a.perso.n convicted .of a felony or a gross .misdemeanor from obtaining..public,records While he or she is incarcerated or otherwise under the supervision of DOC, unless such a denial would interfere with that individual's right to mount a criminal defense. See I-LB. 2138, 59th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Wash. 2005). Once again, the legislature declined to adopt the amendment.'5 15 Again, we note that RCW 42.56.565, enacted during the pendency of this appeal, limits access to certain public records by some but not all persons serving criminal sentences. RCW 42.56.565 provides, (1) The inspection or copying of any nonexempt public record by persons serving criminal sentences in state, local, or privately operated correctional facilities may be enjoined pursuant to this section. The injunction may be requested by: An agency or its representative; (ii) a person named in the record or his or her representative; or 23 SF-01850 PRR-2011 00450 Consol. Nos. 35469-l-Il 35561-2-ll 36933-8-if Accordingly, in light of the plain language of the PRA, our Supreme Court's analysis in and the fact that the legislature has twice declined to narrow this definition, we are a person to whom the requests specifically pertains or his or her representative. The request must be filed in: The superior court in which the movant resides; or (ii) the superior court in the county in which the record is maintained. In order to issue an injunction, the court must find that: The request was made to harass or intimidate the agency or its employees; (ii) Fulfilling the request would likely threaten the security of correctional facilities; Fulfilling the request would likely threaten the safety or security of staff, inmates, family members of staff, family members of other inmates, or any other person; or I (iv) Fulfilling the request may assist criminal activity. (2) In deciding Whether to enjoin a request under subsection of this section, the court may consider all relevant factors including, but not limited to: Other requests by the requestor; The type of record or records sought; Statements offered by the requestor concerning the purpose for the request; Whether disclosure of the requested records would likely harm any person or vital government interest; a ff significant and burdensomecnumber. of. documents; The impact of disclosure on correctional facility security and order, the safety or security of correctional facility staff, inmates, or others, and The deterrence of criminal activity. (3) The motion proceeding described in this section shall be a summary proceeding based on affidavits or declarations, unless the court orders otherwise. Upon a showing by a preponderance of the evidence, the court may enjoin all or any part of a request or requests. Based on the evidence, the court may also enjoin, for a period of time the court deems reasonable, future requests by: The same requestor; or An entity owned or controlled in whole or in part by the same requestor. (4) An agency shall not be liable for penalties under RCW 42.56.550(4) for any period during which an order under this section is in effect, including during an appeal of an order under this section, regardless of the outcome of the appeal. 24 SF-01851 PRR-2011-00450 Consol. Nos. 35469-l-Il 36933-8-II constrained to hold that prison inmates, including those blatantly abusing the PRA, have standing to request records under the PRA. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF . But whether an inmate has standing to request records under the PRA is a distinct issue from whether a DOC employee may seek an injunction preventing disclosure of records that pertain to him or her when disclosure creates an immediate and identifiable threat. Although an agency cannot ask or consider the purpose for vvhich a record is requested to determine whether it is subject to disclosure, it does not necessarily follow that a volunteered and stated harmful purpose cannot be considered in determining Whether to enjoin disclosure of the information. RCW 42.56.540 states, The examination of any specific public record may be enjoined if, upon motion 4 and affidavit by an agency -or its representative or a person who is named in the record or__to 'whom the record specyically pertains, the superior court for the county in which the movant resides or in which the record is maintained, finds that such examination would clearly not be in the public interest and would substantially and irreparably damage any person, or would substantially and irreparably damage vital governmental functions. An agency has the option of notifying persons named in the record or to Whom a record specifically pertains, that release ofa erecordehas been However, thisoption does not.exist~ ee . Where the agency is required by law to provide such notice. (Emphasis added.) An injunction is an extraordinary equitable remedy designed to prevent serious harm; its purpose is not to protect a plaintiff from mere inconveniences or speculative and insubstantial injury. Tyler Pune Indus., Inc. v. Dept* of Revenue, 96 Wn.2d 785, 792-96, 638 P.2d l2l3 (1982). Injunctive relief is unavailable if the applicant, here the DOC employee, has a complete, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. Tyler Pipe, 96 Wn.2d at 791. But a trial court should issue an im unction to an applicant who can demonstrate necessity and irreparable injury. And, as with 25 SF-01852 PRR-2011 00450 Consol. Nos. 35469-1-ll 35561-2-II 3693343-II temporary injunctions, an individual seeking a pennanent injunction must demonstrate that he has a clear legal or equitable right, (2) he has a well-grounded fear of immediate invasion of that right, and (3) that the acts he is complaining of have or vvill result in actual and substantial injury. Tyler Pipe, 96 Wn.2d at 792. Generally, when a trial court considers whether to issue an injunction, it should Weigh the following factors: the character of the interest- to be protected, the relative adequacy to the plaintiff of injunction in comparison with other remedies, the delay, if any, in bringing suit, the misconduct of the plaintiff if any, the relative hardship likely to result to the defendant if an injunction is granted and to the plaintiff if it is denied, the interest of third persons and of the public, and the practicability of framing and enforcing the order or judgment. Holmes Harbor Wafer Co., v. Page, 8 Wn, App. 600, 603, 508 P.2d 628 (1973). Although atrial court should consider the above factors, they are not essential elements of an action for injunctive relief; the essential elements are necessity and irreparable injury. Hollis Garwall, Inc., 88 Wn. Appr 10, 16, 945 P.2d 717 (1997), ajj"d, 137 Wn.2d 683, 974 P.2d 836. (1999). Moreover, the trial court must precisely tailor a permanent injunction to prevent a specific harm. Kitsap County v. Kev, Inc., 106 Wn.2d 135, 143, 720 P.2d 818 (1986); Whatcom County v. Kane, 31 Wu. App, 250, 253, 640 P.2d 1075 (1981). As a result, the order granting the injunction must describe in reasonable detail the acts enjoined as Well as the reasons supporting issuance of the injunction, above and beyond the complaint or other documents. See CR 65(d). In PA WS, our Supreme Court reiterated that the ability of courts to enjoin the release of specific public records under the PRA's injunctive relief provision, RCW 4256.5-40, does not operate as an independent exemption, but rather "merely creates an injunctive remedy" because it is "a procedural provision which allows a superior court to enjoin the release of speciyic public records if they fall within specyic exemptions found elsewhere in the PA WS, 125 26 SF-01853 PRR-2011 00450 Consol. Nos. 35469-l-Il 35561-2-Il 36933-8-II Wn.2d at 257; see also RCW 42.56.540 Stated differently, the PRA's injunction statute governs access to a remedy, but does not create a substantive basis for that remedy. PA WS, 125 Wn.2d at 258. Moreover, RCW 42.56.540 specifically refers to an injunction sought by an individual "who is named in fa] record or to whom [aj record specifically pertains." Thus, if an individual about whom a public record is sought Wants to enjoin disclosure under the injunction statute, the :first step is to determine whether or not the information involved is in fact Within one of the PRA's exemptions. PA WS, 125 Wn.2d at 258. 'But PA WS does not set out any subsequent steps that courts should take in order to determine Whether an individual about whom a public record pertains may be granted injunctive relief. The holding in PA WS Was limited to whether RCW 42.56.540 is an independent PRA exemption or merely creates a remedy. This makes sense because if a recordiis exempt, an 'adequate remedy exists and injunctive relief is not necessary (and hence not available) because the record is not subject to disclosure. Although, in general, an agency cannot consider the requester's intent when determining Whether public records are subject to disclosure under the PRA, when the requestor announces an explicit and volunteered threat, to ignore such an intent leads to absurdmconsequences. unintended by the PRA. For example, if, hypothetically, an inmate requested specific information about a government employee in order to ensure that his hired killer murdered the right person, it is absurd to assert that under the PRA the people of the State of Washington or our legislature intended to compel the agency to disclose this information to the requester. But despite these potentially illogical and catastrophic results, the language in PA WS suggests-but does not expressly hold-that an individual referenced in a public record cannot seek an 1 injunction unless the record falls under a specific, enumerated exemption. Such an overbroad reading of PA WS would mean that individual employees facing a volunteered and explicit threat 27 SF-01854 PRR-2011 00450 Consol. Nos. 35469-1-ll 35561-2-II 36933-8-ll are left without recourse. And if DOC, or 'any other state agency, cannot provide a reasonably safe working environment for its own employees, these individuals must have the right to protect themselves by personally seeking an injunction to prevent an inmate threatening them with bodily harm, defamatory conduct, or other harmful behavior from receiving the information that inmate seeks to use to carry out that harm. To hold otherwise would eviscerate the fundamental and equitable purpose of an injunction. See Agronic Corp. of Am. v. deB0ugh, 21 Wn. App. 459, 464, 585 P.2d 82] (1978) (the purpose of an injunction is not to punish a Wrongdoer for past actions but to protect a party from present or future Wrongful acts) (citing Lewis Pac. Dairymen 's Ass 'n v. Turner, 50 Wn.2d 762, 314 P.2d 625 (l957)). Thus, under the law applicable at the time of Parmelee's request, DOC cannot consider an individual's status as an inmate when determining whether information is subject to disclosure under the PRA, but the trial court could consider a PRA requestor's explicit and volunteered threat when deciding whether an injunction is required to protect the rights of the gove1'nment's employees. The issue is not Whether DOC has an obligation under the PRA to provide records but, rather, individual 'government~ employee has a right to petition 'a court for protection from otherwise harmful behavior. Under the facts of this case, it Was reasonable for the superior court to conclude that, given Parmelee's intended use of photographs he requested, an injunction was appropriate to protect the rights of the individual government employee. Such disclosure is not in the public interest and would damage the employees by subjecting them to intolerable invasions of the privacy of their homes and familyw and damage vital government functions. We note that the 16 Wash. Const. art. 1, 7 states, "No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law." 28 SF-01855 PRR-2011 00450 Consol. Nos. 35469-l-ll 35561-2-ll 36933-8-ll record amply supports the DOC's claim that Parmelee's request is a perverse abuse of the PRA. The PRA declares that the act "shall be enforced so as to insure that the information disclosed Will not be misused for arbitrary and capricious purposes and to insure that all persons reporting under this chapter will be protected from harassment and unfounded allegations based on information they have freely disclosed." RCW 42.l7.0l0(l 1). Here, Parmelee's unfounded allegations that DOC employees are sexual predators and his intent to distribute forged sexually violent predator (SVP) fliers are a misuse of public records to harass DOC employees that should not occur without providing the opportunity for the employee to seek protection from the courts. Although government agencies may not rely on it, given the purpose of an injunction and the policy behind the PRA, the superior court did not err in issuing the injunction to protect the rights of those employees who have been the subject of volunteered and explicit threats, including those employees named in Parmelee's sexual predator flyer." 17 We note that SVP fliers of the sort Parmelee intends would also interfere with the vital governmental function of accurately alerting its citizens to the presence of convicted sex offenders in their neighborhood by flooding the public with false notices. These notices not only harass DOC employees and their families, but also inure the public to the safety information communicated in the genuine fliers by flooding the market with counterfeit SVP notices. 29 SF-01856 PRR-2011 00450 Consol. Nos. 36933-8-Il EMPLOYEE BADGE IDENTIFICATION PHOTOGRAPHS A. PUBLIC RECORD The PRA requires agencies to make "public records" available for inspection and copying, absent an exemption from disclosure. RCW As a result, the determination of whether a document is a "public record" is critical for purposes of the PRA. Oliver v. Harborview Meal Ctr., 94 Wn.2d 559, 565 n.l, 618 P.2d 76 (1980). The PRA defines "public record" as any writing containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics." Former RCW 42.l7.020(4l) (2005) (emphasis added); Oliver, 9-4 Wn.2d at 565 n.l. The PRA further deiines "writing" as handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, and every other means of recording any form of communication or representation, including, but not limited to, letters, Words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combination thereof, and all papers, maps, magnetic or paper tapes, photographic iilms and prints, motion picture, film and video recordings, magnetic or punched cards, discs, drums, diskettes, sound recordings, and other documents including existing -i - - - data compilations from which information may be obtained or translated.- 1 .- - Former RCW 42.17.020(48) (2005). Here, the broad definition of "writing" expressly includesrphotographs and DOC prepares employee badge identification photographs; thus, these photographs satisfy the iirst and third elements of the definition of "public record." See former RCW The remaining question is Whether a DOC employee badge photograph relates to the conduct of "any governmental or proprietary function." Former RCW Although the PRA is intended to enable the citizens of the State of Washington to retain sovereignty over our government and to demand full access to information relating to our government's activities, the 30 SF-01857 PRR-2011 00450 Consol. Nos. 35469-1 -II 35561-2-ll PRA was "not intended to make it easier for the public to obtain personal infomation about individuals who have become subject to government action due to personal factors Such personal information generally has no bearing on how our government operates." Lindemon v. Kelso Sch. Dist. No. 458, 127 Wn. App. 526, 535-36, P.3d 1235 (2005), rev'd on other grounds, 162 Wn.2d 196, 172 P.3d 329 (2007). While several Washington cases have examined whether particular "writings" that are "prepared, owned, used, or retained" by government "relating to the conduct of goverment or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function," none articulates a comprehensive test or presents an analytical framework for making such a determination. Former RCW 42, Here, We do not answer the question of whether the requested photographs are public records. As an initial matter, the record is insufficient for us to determine if these particular photographs are public records. Although there is some suggestion that all DOC badges look the same, except that they are issued in differing colors based on whether the photograph is of an individualwhe isa correctional officer, -a staff member, or an inmate, DOC has not addressed the devious potential security risk releasing these badges may pose in this digital age. Moreover, We cannot determine from this record how the photographs are stored, vvhether the badge itself contains the only copy of the photograph, Whether the photographs are stored digitally elsewhere, Whether a hard copy of the photographs exits, or Whether the format of such photographs enables them tc be digitally scanned and altered. Despite our request, DOC's briefing does not squarely address the issue and asks us to assume, without holding, that these photographs are public records, Because the record is insufficient for us to do otherwise, We 31 SF-01858 PRR-2011 00450 Consoi. Nos. 35469-l-Il 35561-2-II 36933-8-II must presume that the photographs DOC prepared to give Parmelee in response to his PRA request are public records relating to the conduct of goverment or proprietary imction. B. . PRIVATE INFORMATION EXEMPTION . Parmelee argues that the trial court erred when it considered his possible intended use of the photographs and found that DOC employee photographs were exempt from disclosure under the privacy exemption." As set out above, although the superior court did not err in considering Parmelee's stated intent' in deciding whether to exercise its equitable injunctive authority regarding individual employee's requests for protection, the version of the PRA in effect at the time Parmelee made the requests at issue in this case prohibits consideration of such reasons in analyzing Whether records are statutorily exempt from disclosure. The PRA contains specific exemptions from disclosure for certain categories of public records. RCW 42.56.2l0. Specifically, RCW 42.56.230(2) provides that "[p]ersonal information in files _maintained for employees . of any public agency to the extent that disclosure would violate their right to privacy" is exempt from public inspection and copying. Under the-PRA,-a person's right to privacy under RCW 42.56.050 is violated ffonly ifdisclosure of information about the person: (1) Would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (2) is not of legitimate concernto the public." RCW 42.56.050 The term "[p]ersonal information" means information "of or relating to a particular person." Lindeman, l27 Wn. App. at 539-40 (quoting NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1686 (3d ed. 1969)) (declining to conclude that personal information implies private information because it would render other 18 ln the DOC v. Parmelee matter, both DOC and Pannelee devote portions of their briefs to the issue of Whether the flyers at issue qualify as slander. But this is not a tort action for slander or libel and We decline to address the issue further. 32 SF-01859 PRR-2011 00450 Consol. Nos. 35561-2-H 36933-8-II language in the PRA superfluous). Generally, the right of privacy pertains only to the intimate details of one's personal and private life." Spokane Police Guild, 112 Wn.2d at 38. The first element of the privacy analysis is whether disclosure of the employee badge photographs would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. RCW 42.56.050 An individual has a privacy interest Whenever information that reveals unique facts about those named is linked to an identifiable individual. iberino v. Spokane County, 103 Wn. App. 680, 689, 13 P.3d 1104 (2000). But a passport-type identification photograph is not the type of sensitive, personal information that the PRA intended to exclude from disclosure. See Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe, 90 Wn.2d 123, 136, 580 P.2d 246 (1978) (identifying examples of private information, including sexual relations, family quarrels, unpleasant or disgraceful or humiliating illnesses, or intimate, personal letters). As Parmelee points out, the information revealed by a public employee's photograph on his or her government identification badge is decidedly public: it is infomation 19 lt is important to note that Wash. Const. art. I, 7 guarantees the people of Washington the right to privacy above and beyond the privacy exemption provided under the PRA. And an individual does not wholly surrender his or her constitutional right to privacy by virtue of his or her decision to seek employment with a governmental agency such as DUC. We can think of no reason why an individual who serves as a cook at DOC is afforded a lesser privacy right to the use of their photographic image than an individual who chooses to Work as a cook at a local diner. 33 SF-01860 PRR-2011 00450 Consol. Nos. 5561-2-II 36933~8-ll that the employee reveals to colleagues, friends, and strangers on a daiiy basis." See Sheehan, 114 Wn. App. at 342 (holding that a public disclosure request for all officers in King County did not violate officers' right to privacy because the information was already public), Moreover, it is an image that could be captured (but not necessarily disseminated) legally by any member of the public or the media while the employee is walking down the street. Sheehan, ll4 Wn. App. at 342. _Perhaps more important, the PRA contains specific provisions listing what type of employment information is exempt from public disclosure, including employment applications, resumes, employees' residential addresses and telephone numbers, e-mail addresses, social security numbers, and emergency contact information. See former RCW 42.56.250 (2006). The legisiatnre did not include identification badge photographs' in this list. See Wash. State Republican Parry v. Wash. Stare Pub. Disclosure Comm 141 Wn.2d 245, 280, 4 P.3d 808 (2000) (refusing to read an implied exemption into the PRA because "[w]here a statute specifically lists the things upon which it operates, there is a presumption that the legislating body intended all omissions"). Generally, of a passport-type identification photograph is not highly offensive to a reasonable person and, as a result, We do not reach the 20 Parmelee also relies on Sheehan by analogizing the employee photographs here with officers' names in Sheehan. Parmelee quotes Sheehan's reasoning that [o]fficers who are not operating undercover disclose their own names each day, on the name tags that they Wear on their uniforms, on the tickets and citations that they issue, to suspects Whom they interrogate, to Witnesses whom they interview, and on the public record when they testify in open court. Sheehan, li4 Wn. App. at 340. We note that the Sheehan court was not analyzing whether the names were exempt as an invasion of the officers' privacy but rather whether the names qualified as "specific intelligence information" that was "essential to effective law enforcement." Sheehan, ll4 Wn. App. at 338-39. 34 SF-01861 PRR-2011 00450 Consol. Nos. 35561 -2-ll 36933-8-ll second element of the privacy analysis: whether disclosure of the DOC employees' photographs is a legitimate public concern. RCW 42.56.050 C. MATTERS UNDER THE PROVINCE OF DOC Next, DOC suggests that if We find that the employee photographs are not exempt under the privacy exemption, We should allow it to refuse Parme1ee's public disclosure request under the particular facts of this case. Specifically, DOC argues that this is a matter affecting a prison's internal security and, thus, is within the province of prison administrators, not this court. Because accepting this premise would eviscerate the PRA, We are compelled to disagree. DOC relies on a Wisconsin Court of Appeals case, State ex rel. Morice v. Record Custodian, Department of Health Social Services, 159 Wis.2d 722, 465 235 (Ct. App. 'il 990), to support its argument that concern for the safety and well being of the prison staff and their families outweigh the general rule favoring public access to government records. In Morice, the Wisconsin court upheld a prison records custodian's decision to refuse an inmate's request for the names, home addresses, and published home telephone numbers of all persons employed at-hisrassigned prison. l59>>Wis.2d at 724. The court reasoned that if the -records. custodian gave the inmate the information he requested, it would jeopardize the institution's interest in ensuring its employees' safety. Morke, 159 Wis.2d at 726. But Morice, like decisions from other jurisdictions, is generally not helpful because it interpreted a different statute. Sappenfield, 127 Wn. App. at 89. Moreover, Morke is distinguishable from the case at hand. Unlike the Wisconsin statute, the PRA's privacy exemption specifically exempts home addresses and telephone numbers from disclosure. See RCW 42.56.05 0. Federal and state courts have consistently deferred to prison officials regarding matters affecting prison management and prison administrators for the difficult judgments concerning 35 SF-01862 PRR-2011 00450 Consol. Nos. 35469-1-II 35561-2-II 36933-8-ll institutional operations. Turner v. Sajley, 482 U.S. 78, 89, 107 S. Ct. 2254, 96 L. Ed. 2d 64 (1987). Despite the deference given prison officials, the intersection of prison management and the PRA presents unique challenges. See, ag., Sappenjield, 127 Wn. App. at 90 (because they are incarcerated, prisoner access to records may occur "by means of copies mailed upon payment of a reasonable fee" instead of an in-person examination). And, while under LiViI'lgSf0I'l?S reasoning DOC would be permitted to intercept these photographs in their mailroom, DOC argues that we should not require it to rely on mailroom employees intercepting such materials when an inmate makes his malicious intentions known. But the PRA does not allow DOC to decide unilaterally what public records it can refuse to disclose based on the requestor's intended purpose. See RCW 42.56.080. As stated above, it is the affected employee, not DOC, who retains the equitable statutory right to protect himself from a stated nefarious intent under the PRA. A MA THIEU PARMELEE A. NONPHOTOGRAPHIC RECORDS .. 1. . . . Parmelee argues that the superior court erred when it categorically enjoined disclosure of Mathieu's performance reviews" because it failed to identify a specific exemption for those records. Because the trial court failed to review the records and fully analyze the issue, we agree. Evaluations of public employees that contain specific instances of misconduct are subject 21 Parmelee also requested Mathieu's "critical" employment records. It is unclear what Parmelee is referring to when he requested "critical" employment records and, as a result, this request is not sufficiently specific to require production. It is not a request for a specific document or specific group of documents, but rather a record that the record keeper deems "critical" in his or her own judgment or believes that the requestor might think "criticalfi Generally, DOC does not have a duty to clarify Parmelee's request. 36 SF-01863 PRR-2011 00450 Consol. Nos. 35469-1-II/35561-2-ll /36933-8-11 to public disclosure. Spokane Research Def Fund v. City of Spokane, 99 Wn. App. 452, 456, 994 P.2d 267 (2000). But evaluations that do not contain specific instances of misconduct are exempt because both the supervisor and the employee reasonably expect those evaluations to remain confidential and the disclosure of that information would be offensive to a reasonable person and of small public concern. Spokane Research, 99 Wn. App. at 456-57. Here, Mathievfs personnel records are not subject to disclosure under the PRA unless they contain specific instances of misconduct while in the performance of her public duties for which there is a legitimate public concern. Limsrrom v. Ladenburg, 85 Wn. App. 524, 533-34, 933 P.2d 1055 (1997) disclosure of the details of [an employee's] misconduct, while in the performance of his public duties, is not highly offensive" and "there is no doubt that the misconduct of a prosecutor in the performance of her duties is a matter of legitimate public concern?) (quoting Dawson v. Daly, 120 Wn.2d 782, 796, 845 P.2d 995 (1993)), rev'a' on other grounds, 136 Wn.2d 595, 963 P.2d 869 (1998). The record on appeal to this court does not contain the records DOC compiled for Parmelee regarding Mathieu. Accordingly, although our review is de novo, we cannotdetermine Whether the records are properly subject to disclosure and remand is necessary to allow the trial court to review the records in camera and determine Which, if any, whether Parmelee is entitled to. See Zink v. City of Mesa, 140 Wn. App. 328, 336- 43, 166 P.3d 738 (2007) (holding that remand is necessary for determination by the superior court Whether there had been compliance with the PRA). A 2. COMPENSATION RECORDS Next, Parmelee argues that the superior court erred when it enjoined disclosure of Mathieu's compensation records, except for information related to her pay grade and pay scale. We agree. Information about a public employee's compensation, including publicly funded SF-01864 PRR-2011 00450 Consol. Nos. 35561-2-II 36933-8-il fringe benefits, vacation, and sick leave pay, is subject to disclosure. See acoma Pub. Library v. Waeamef, 90 Wa. App. 205, 222, 951 P.2a 357, 972 P.2d 932 (l998).22 3. ADMINISTRATIVE GRIEVANCES AND INTERNAL INVESTIGATION RECORDS Parmelee also argues that the superior court erred when it found that Mathieu's administrative grievances and investigative records were exempt from disclosure. Under former RCW "[s]pecific intelligence information and specific investigative records compiled by investigative, law enforcement, and penology agencies, and state agencies vested with the responsibility to discipline members of any profession, the nondisclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement or for the protection of any person's right to privacy" is exempt from disclosure under the PRA. As stated above, this exemption does not permit DOC to withhold records pertaining to staff discipline. See Limslrom, 85 Wn. Appr at 533. For purposes of intelligence and investigation records, "law enforcement" means an agency's investigation of illegal conduct, subject to a fine or prison term. Brouillet v. Cowles Publ 'g Co., 114 Wn.2d 788, 796, 79] P.2d 526 (1990). But because the reeordonirevievv does not containthe- recordsl3OC compiled for Parrnelee,we..cannot.determine if they are properly subject to disclosure under the PRA and remand to the trial court for such review is necessary. See Zink, 140 Wn. App. at 336-43. 4, STAFF RECORDS Parmelee further argues that the superior court erred when it limited DOC's release of Mathieu's training record to the 24 months preceding Parmelee's request. Generally, training records are subj ect to disclosure under the PRA unless they fall under a specific exemption, such 22 We note that Woesner did not address the applicability of the Health insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) to PRA requests for public employees' compensation records. A 3 8 SF-01865 PRR-2011 00450 Consol. Nos. 35469-1-IU 35561-2-IU 36933-8-II as the law enforcement exemption. See Livingston v. Cedeno, 135 Wn. App. 976, 978, 146 P.3d 1220 (2006) (where DOC complied with an inmate's PRA request for training records of a specific corrections ofticer), ajfd, 164 Wn.2d 46, 186 P.3d 1055 (2008). Here, Mathieu's training records are subject to disclosure, unless they fall under an exemption. DOC compiled these documents and was apparently Willing to produce them. See Spokane Police Guild, 112 Wn.2d at 37. But because the record on review does not contain the records DOC compiled for Parmelee, We cannot determine if they are properly subject to disclosure under the PRA and remand is necessary. See Zirzk, 140 Wn. App. at 336~43. B. DUE PROCESS Parmelee argues that the PRA establishes a state created "liberty interest" and the trial court denied him his right to clue process because it "did not consider fhis] evidence and denied [him] an opportunity to present evidence or argument on critical issues." Br. of Appellant (Mathieu v. Parmelee) at 10. We disagree. The Washington and Federal constitutions prohibit the government from depriving a person of-life,--liberty, due process of lavv. WASH. CONST. art. U.S.- CONST. amend. XIV, 1. Washington courts have not held that the PRA creates a constitutional right subject to due process protections under either the state or federal constitutions. While statutes or regulations can create due process liberty interests where none otherwise existed, the statute must still implicate a liberty interest. See In re Pers. Restraint of Cashaw, 123 Wn.2d 138, 145, 866 P.2d 8 (1994) (citing Olim v. Wakirzekona, 461 U.S. 238, 250, 103 S. Ct. 1741, 75 L. Ed. 2d 813 (1983)) If a statute merely creates procedure, it does not create a liberty interest. In re Cashew, 123 Wn.2d at 146. 1 39 SF-01866 PRR-2011 00450 Consol. Nos. Here, the PRA does not create a substantive liberty right. But even if We assume, without holding, that the PRA creates a property interest, Parmelee was not denied due process. Parmelee's argument that the superior court denied him due process by granting the injunction Without his meaningful participation iacks merit. In Mathieu v. Parmelee, the trial court allowed Parmelee to participate by considering his motions," as Well as the evidence attached to his pleadings, and allowing him to argue his motions and respond over the telephone. Moreover, Parmelee engaged in extensive discovery. Thus, although the trial court's decision may have been adverse to him, Parmelee received due process and these procedures provided him an adequate opportunity to be heard. DELONG I4 DOC A. REQUEST TO INTERVENE UNDER CR 24 Parmelee also contends that the superior court erred when it denied his requests to intervene under CR 24. Parmelee's request to intervene was untimely and was properly denied. We review rulings on intervention as a matter of right de novo. Westerman v. Cary, 125 rWn.2d;277, 302,--8-92 Pr2d--106-7* .In order to-intervene as a matter of right under-CR 24(a), the intervenor must satisfy four criteria: (1) the application to intervene must be timely, (2) the applicant claims an interest that is the subject ofthe action, (3) the disposition will likely adversely affect the applicant?s ability to protect that interest, and (4) the applicant's interest is not adequately protected by the existing parties. CR 24(a); Ferencak v, Dep 't of Labor Indus., 142 Wn. App. 713, 720, 175 P.3d 1109 (2008) (citing Spokane County v. State, 136 Wn.2d 644, 649, 966 P.2d 305 (l998)), No. 81481-3, 2010 WL 2432085 (Wash. June 17, 2010). In fact, the trial court granted Parmelee's motion to dismiss all of the petitioners except Mathieu because she was the only petitioner who signed the original petition. 23 40 1 SF-01867 PRR-2011 00450 Consol. Nos. 35469-1-IU 35561-2-II 36933-8-II We review a trial court's evaluation of timeliness for abuse of discretion. Olver v. Fowler, 161 Wn.2d 655, 663, 168 P.3d 348 (2007) (citing Kreidler v. Eikenberry, 111 Wn.2d 828, 832, 766 P.2d 438 (1989)). A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons. Olver, 161 Wn.2d at 663 (quoting TS. v. Boy Scouts of/lm., 157 Wn.2d 416, 423, 138 P.3d 1053 (2006)) A trial court's decision is manifestly unreasonable if it adopts a view that no reasonable person would take. Olver, 161 Wn.2d at 663 (quoting TS, 157 Wn.2d at 424), Post-judgment intervention requires a strong showing that intervention is necessary, taking into consideration all of the circumstances including prior notice, prejudice to the other parties, and reasons for the delay. Olver, 161 Wn.2d at 663 (citing Kreidler, 111 Wn.2d at 833). On October 10, 2006, Parmelee tiled a notice of appearance and sought to intervene in the action "On Behalf Of His Unprotected Interests And [to] Replace The DOC As Defendant" CP (DeLong) at 119. Parmelee again moved to intervene on October 23, 2006 and October 24, 2006, after entry of the trial court's orders. 1- Although Parmelee- first- moved to intervene-on October 10,~2006, for reasons that- are unclear in this record, the superior court never ruled on or acknowledged this motion. But even if the motion had been properly docketed, Parmelee did not serve DOC and DOC did not have proper notice of Parmelee's motion to intervene. CR 5. Moreover, Parmelee failed to offer any explanation for his failure to properly serve his initial motion and, thus, Parmelee failed to make a "strong showing" that his intervention was necessary in light of his failure to serve DOC. Accordingly, We do not consider Parmelee's untimely intervention argument further. 41 SF-01868 PRR-2011 00450 Consol. Nos. 35469-1-II 35561-2-11 36933-8-Il B. OINDER UNDER CR 19(a) Although Parmelee's motion to intervene was untimely, the issue of Whether Parmelee should have been joined as a necessary party in the case is one that can be raised forthe first time on appeal; a trial court lacks jurisdiction if all necessary parties are not joined. reyz v. Pierce County, 118 Wn. App. 458, 462, 76 P.3d 292 (2003), review denied, 151 Wn.2d 1022 (2004). Under CR l9(a), a person shall be joined as a necessary party if (1) the trial court cannot make a complete determination of the controversy without that party's presence, (2) the party's ability to protect its interest in the subject matter of the litigation would be impeded by a judgment in the case, and (3) judgment in the case necessarily would affect the party's interest. Town of Ruston v. City of acoma, 90 Wn. App. 75, 82, 951 P.2d 805, review denied, 136 Wn.2d 1003 (1998). Here, Parme1ee's participation was necessary to protect his interests under the PRA. This is particularly true here, Where the petitioners (DOC employees) and DOC had identical interests and the proceedings were not genuinely adversarial. The superior court heard extensive argument from-~two petitioners detailing Parmelee's harassment-of -DOC personnel -and-itbased much of its decision on Parmelee's history of disruptive and malicious behavior. Because of their aligned interests, DOC had no incentive to cross-examine the DOC employees' testimony regarding Parmelee's harassment. Moreover, the petitioners' and DOC's interests in the result were entirely aligned in this matter: each sought to preclude Parmelee from obtaining records under the PRA and argued that he should he excluded from participation in the matter. As a result of this ailiance, neither party presented Parmelee's arguments and the court did not otherwise address inmate concerns. Clearly, Parmelee's interests were necessarily impacted by the adverse judgments Because Parmelee had an interest relating to the subj ect matter of the 42 SF-01869 PRR-2011 00450 Consol. Nos. 35469-l-ll 36933-8-II action, his interests could be (and Were) impacted by an adverse judgment and the trial court could not make a complete determination Without Par1nelee's participation, he was a necessary party and the superior _court erred by excluding him from participating in the proceeding. Burt, 231 Psa at 196. 5 As we held in Mathieu v. Parmelee above, the trial court's consideration of written motions, documents, and telephonic submissions satisfies due process and is sufficient to provide Parmelee an adequate opportunity to be heard. The PRA does not require oral argument or a full evidentiary hearing. RCW 42.5 6.5 40; Thurston County Local Rule 43 (unless otherwise ordered, motions shall be decided only on the pleadings, affidavits, declarations, published depositions, and other documents duly filed and served). See, ag., RCW 42.56.565 (effective March 20, 2009) ("the motion proceeding described in- this section shall be a summary proceeding based on affidavits or declarations, unless the [superior court] orders otherwise"). C. JUDICIAL NOTICE Parmelee argues that the trial court erred when it took judicial notice of the evidence in Mathieu- v, DOG,rnatter.. Specifically, Parmelee argues that, although- there was some overlap between the issues in the two cases, they were separate actions with separate parties and, thus, it was improper for the superior court to take judicial notice. We disagree. Although a court "cannot, while trying one cause, take judicial notice of records of' other independent and separate judicial proceedings even though they [are] between the same parties," a trial court may take judicial notice of the record in proceedings "engrafted, ancillary, of supplementary" to the cause before it. Swak v. Dept of Labor Indus., 40 Wn.2d 51, 54, 240 P.2d 560 (1952). Here, the petitioners in the DeLong v. DOC case were many of the same 43 SF-01870 PRR-2011 00450 Consol. NOS. 35561-2-ll 36933-8-II individuals originally named in the Mathieu v. Parmelee case who were dismissed on the technical ground of having failed to sign the petition. The issues in each case, and the evidence upon which each relied, were identical. Thus, the Mathieu v. Parmelee action is "engrafted, ancillary, or supplementary" to the DeLong v. DOC action and the trial court's decision to take judicial notice ofthe evidence in Mathieu v. Parmelee was proper. See Swak, 40 Wn.2d at 54. In conclusion, we hold that, despite obvious and repeated abuses, prison inmates had and continue to have standing to request records under the PRA. Although at the time Parmelee tiled the requests at issue in this case the trial court could not consider Parmelee's intent when determining whether a document is subject to disclosure under the PRA, we hold that it did not err when it considered Parmelee's explicit and volunteered threat in deciding whether to grant the government employee's request for an injunction to protect the individual rights of that government employee. A Accordingly, as to Mathieu v. Parmelee, we are constrained to reverse the injunction against Parmelee because she was not named in his counterfeit sexual predator flyer and is unableto demonstrate that shewasthe victimof this explicit ~l\/loreover, We hold that the trial court erred when it found that Mathieu's personnel records, intelligence and investigation reports, and portions of her compensation records and training records were exempt from disclosure under the PRA. But because the record on appeal to this court does not contain the records DOC compiled for Parmelee regarding Mathieu, remand is necessary to aiiow the trial court to review in camera the documents regarding Mathieu's personnel records, intelligence and investigation reports, and training records and determine Whether Parmelee is entitled to them. 44 SF-01871 PRR-2011 00450 Consol. Nos. 35469-l-Il 35561-2'-Il 36933-8-II As to DeLong v. DOC, we hold that while Parmelee's request to intervene was properly denied as untimely, the trial court erred when it refused to join Parmelee as a necessary party. We must vacate for Want of jurisdiction and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. As to DOC v. Parmelee, we hold that While ordinarily a superior court cannot consider a PRA requestor's intent when determining vvhetheran injunction is appropriate, DOC employees have the right to seek an injunction to protect their individual privacy rights when faced with an explicit and volunteered threat. QUINN-BRIN I. I concur: .3 BRIDGEWATER, P.J. 45 SF-01872 PRR-2011-00450 Consol. Nos. 354694-II 36933-8-II Houghton, -- (concurring and dissenting). I concur with the majority except to the extent that it bases its joinder discussion on Burt v. Washington State Dep 'f of Carr. 168 Wn.2d 828, 231 P.3d 191 (2010). I served as a justice pro tempore on Burt and joined in the dissent. Therefore, I dissent from relying on its reasoning here. 1 Vu 13/ Houghton, is Judge Houghton is serving as judge pro tempore of the Court of Appeals, Division II, under RCW 206.150, . 46 SF-01873 PRR-2011-00450 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON i M, CP A qi fi, DIVISION II QQ ag, *Ia ti; E??tf?f" le, ALLAN PARMELEE, "ff" A ga? Appellant, Q2 (ji V, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO MODI fig; LAURA MATHIEU, ET AL, Respondents. APPELLANT has filed a motion to modify a Commissioners ruling dated une 6, 2007, inthe above-entitled matter. Following consideration, the court denies the motion. Accordingly, it is - SO ORDERED. DATED this day of 2007. PANEL: Ij. Van Deren, Quinn-Brintnall, Penoyar FOR THE COURT: ?ggil Q3 4 .Ji ACTING CHIEF UD Allan Parmelee Sara I Olson 793782 1313 North 13th Attorney Generals Office WA State Penitentiary PO BOX 40116 Walla Walla, WA, 993 62 Olympia, WA, 98504-0116 Hank Balson Public Interest Law Group 705 2nd Ave Ste 501 Seattle, WA, 981044715 SF-01874 PRR-2011-00450 FILED CLALLAM COUNTY 20.22 0 2005 BARBARA ICH 5 SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF CLALLAM LT. DELONG, SGT. AHRENS, SGT. MCHAFFIE, SGT. BICK, SGT. SGT. BANNER, SGT. BLANKENSHIP, SGT. MATHTEU, PADGETT, RI-EAMES, IUDD, SANDNESS, CORNISH, Petitioners, NO. MEMORANDUM OPINION ON INMATE PARMELEE, ALLAN, DOC THIRD PARTY #793782 MOTION TO DISMISS Respondent, V. KAREN BRUN ON and HAROLD CLARKE, Third Party Defendants. This matter has somewhat of a troubled procedural history. Initially, the pro se Plaintiffs, who are corrections officers at the Clallam Bay Correctional Facility, a State Institution located at Clallam Bay, Washington, filed an action against Defendant Allan Parmelee, an inmate who at the time was incarcerated at the corrections facility. The Petitioners asked to restrain disclosure of their personal information pursuant to inmate Parme1ee's public disclosure request. Two Court Commissioners looked at the issue and ultimately decided that the Department of Corrections needed to be a party and authorized the bringing in the Third Party Defendants. The matter proceeded to a hearing and this Memorandum Opinion 1 KEN WILLIAMS .DOC DGE Claltam County Superior Court 223 East Fourth Street, Suite 8 pm mm SF-01875 PRR-2011-00450 Court issued a Memorandum Opinion on September l9, 2006, resolving the issues raised. A Final Order was entered on October 24, 2006. Third Party Defendants now seek Summary Judgment of Dismissal indicating that they have complied with the terms ofthe Court Order restricting what information they could disclosure to Mr. Pannelee. Mr. seeks a stay so that he may be given more time to respond to the Third Party Defendants' Motion ibr Summary Judgment. ln the opinion of the Court all matters in this file are moot. The issues which were raised were limited to the specifics ofthe Public Disclosure Act request a restraining order filed by the Petitioners. Ultimately, because Petitioners Were not represented by legal counsel, the case devolved to the one Petitioner who appeared being granted relief on her petition. There are no remaining issues of any kind to be resolved. A Final Order has been entered. Absent filing of an appeal by a party this case is complete. The Third Party Defendant is a party who is subject to the Court's Final Order entered in this case. Accordingly any further motions are moot. Should any further action occur in this matter it would have to occur at the Court of Appeals. DATED this 2@ day of 2006. Respectfully submitted, KEN WILLIAMS I Memorandum Opinion 2 KEN DGE Ciatlam County Superior Court 223 East FOUFU1 SUGSL SURE Und UVA SF-01876 PRR-2011-00450 (sf FILED THE HONORABLE KEN WILLIAMS 20011 OCT 21rn; [ilk il lififll. Ft lift li fi STATE OF WASHINGTON CLALLAM COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT NO. 06-2-00637-5 LT. SGT, SGT. MCHAEFIE, SGT. BICK, SGT. COULKES, SGT. BANNER, SGT. ORDER ON PERMANENT BLANKENSHIP, SGT. MATHIEU, HWJUNCTION PADGETT, REAMES, (proposed) TUDD, SANDNESS, CORNISH, Petitioners, V. INMATE PARMELEE, ALLAN DOC #793781 Respondent, V. KAREN BRUNSON and HAROLD CLARKE, Third Part Defendants. This matter came before the Court on Petitioner's motion for a permanent injunction. The Court granted the pennancnt injunction in a memorandum opinion dated September 19, 2006. In reaching its decision to grant a permanent injunction, the Court considered the pleadings in this case and the following evidence: 1. Declaration of Marilyn Brenneman; and 120110, 2* pu/I5 1 IA Text entry not defined. PRR-2011-00450 2. _Declaration of enise Vaughan and Attachments. I. FINDINGS OF FACT . Based on the arguments of Petitioner, Respondent and Third Party Defendants and the evidence presented by the parties, the Court tinds: l. Respondent, Allan Parmelee is, and has been at all times relevant to this action, a Washington State inmate; A 2. Respondent, Allan Parmelee has submitted- public disclosure requests, pursuant to the Public Records Act (PRA) RCW 42.56, et seq., requesting personal information and personnel records of Petitioner; 3. Petitioner is an employee of the Department of Corrections, employed at Clallam Bay Corrections Center; A 4. Department of Corrections, is a law enforcement agency whose records are subject to exemption under the PRA. 5. Respondent, Allan Parmelee has submitted these public disclosure requests to gather information to harass, slander, and endanger Petitioner and her family; 6. Respondent, Allan Parmelee's requests are not being made to gather information about governmental functions in accordance with the purpose of the 7. Producing the documents requested by Respondent Allan Parmelee is not inthe public interest; I 8. Producing the documents requested by Respondent Allan Parmelee will substantially and irreparably damage the Petitioner; and 9. Producing the documents requested will substantially and irreparably interfere with the vital governmental functions furthered by the Department of Corrections. ()6_2i00637_5 2 Error! AutoText entry not defined. PRR-2011-00450 II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Based on the above findings, the Court concludes that: 1. The production of records requested by Respondent Allan Parmclee is not in the public interest and will substantially and irreparably damage the Petitioner and will substantially and irreparably interfere with the vital governmental functions furthered by the Department of Corrections; 2. Responding to Respondent Allan Parmelee's public disclosure requests is not in the public interestPetitioner is entitied to injunctive relief fiom Respondenfs abusive requests pursuant to RCW 42.56.540 which states, in relevant part, "The examination of any specific public record may be enjoined it; upon motion and affidavit by an agency the superior court for the county in which the movant resides or in which the record is maintained, finds that such examination would clearly* not be in the public interest and would substantially and irreparably damage any person, or would substantially and irreparably damage vital governmental functions" (emphasis added). PERMANENT ORDER Based on the above findings, it is ORDERED: 1. Petitioner, Laura Mathieu, is GRANTED a permanent injunction limiting the release of her personal and personnel information requested by Respondent Allan Parmelee through requests made under the Public Records Act to the Department of Corrections. Department of Corrections shall only release information related to Petitioner's pay grade and pay scale. Department of Corrections shall also release Petitioner's training records, if requested, for the 24 months immediately preceding the request and only if the release of those records will not have an impact on Department of Correction's ability to function appropriately in a law enforcement capacity; and ()6_2_00637_5 3 Error! AutoText entry not dellned. SF-01879 PRR-2011 00450 2. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to send uncertified copies of this Order to Petitioner, Respondent, and counsel for the Third Party Defendants. DATED this day of 2006. NORABLE KEN Court Judge Presented by: 1 4 I I 7 aura Mathieu DA NG, O6-2-006315 4 Error! AutoText entry not defined. PRR-2011-00450 SUFEREGR 5 QEXPEDITE No lflearing Set - 3 gi EI Hearing is set MDR 3 Date: _u Time; SCULQ etizaft I-Ion. Thomas McPhee at STATE oe WASHINGTON 1 5' THURSTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ALLAN NO. O7-2-01295-5 i Plaintifij ORDER v. HAROLD CLARKE, Defendant. This matter oame before the Count on the Plaintiffs Motion for Juclgment on February 26, 2010. The Court orally ruled. The Couit considered the oral argument of Plaintiff and Counsel for Defendant in addition to the following pleadings oi' the parries: 1. Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, with attached exhibits; 2. Defendaiifs Response to Motion for Summary Judgment, with attached exhibits; and 3. Plaintiffs Reply to Response to Motion for Summary Judgment, with attached exhibits. The Court does hereby iind and ORDER: l. Plaintiffs olaima regarding requests numbered WSP 301 WSP 345, WSP 391, WSP l4U, WSP 141 and WSP 15 are barred by the statute of limitations contained in RCW ORDER 1 ATTORNEY OF WASHINGTON 1' No. 07-2-012956 A A ee Pla/Def SF-01881 PRR-2011 -00450 2. Plaintiffs claims regarding requests numbered WSP 468, PDU 185, PDU 232, PDU 220, PDU 268, PDU 280, PDU 342, PDU 390, PDU 221, PDU 235, PDU 238, and PDU 293 are dismissed as Defendant did not violate the Public Records Act with regard to these requests; 3. Plaintiffs claims regarding requests numbered WSP 505 and WSP 18 are stayed pending the resolution of the appeal of the permanent injunction entered in Thurston County Superior Court Cause No. The Clerk ofthe Court is insancted to send copies Order to Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant. DATED this 363 day of - .L zoos. li_4"? HONORABLE TI-IO MCPI-IEE Submitted by: ROBERT M. MCKENNA Atto ney Genet J. ON, WSBA #33003 Agreed as to form: ALLAN PARMELEE Plaintiff QRDER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON Corrections Division NO- 07'2'01295"5 PO Box 40116 Olympia, WA 9S504~0l l6 (360) 536-1445 F-0 1 8 82 PRR-2011-00450 gl 5% ., . EXPEDITE N0 Healing Set at Hearing is Set .W Date 12-5-08 Time 1120 am- Hon. Christine A. Pomeroy STATE OF WASHINGTON THURSTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ALLAN PARMELEE, NO. O7-2-01295-5 Plaintiff ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS V. COUNTER-CLAIM AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF HAROLD CLARKE, SET-OFF Defendant. This matter having come on for a hearing on December 4, 2008 on Plaintiff Motion to Dismiss, and the court being familiar with the records and tiles herein and having heard the arguments of the parties, and being fully informed does hereby rind and ORDER: 1. Venue is proper in Thurston County for Defendant, Department of Corrections (DOC) to assert a counterclaim and affirmative defense of set-off. 2. DOC is entitled to assert a counterclaim and affirmative defense of set-off for the owed by Plaintiff from any recovery to which Plaintiff may be entitled. 3. Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. debt DENYING 1 GENERAL 95 Corrections Division Morton TO DISMISS WITH PO BOX 40116 PREJUDICE Cnoss- ofympia. WA 98504-0116 CLAIMS No, 07-2-01295-5 (369) SF-01883 PRR-2011-00450 4, The Clerk ofthe Court is instructed to send uncertified copies of this Order to Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant. DATED this 57% day of D555 5 6 rf ,zoos A. FUNERUY HONORABLE CHRISTINE A. POMEROY Submitted by: ROBERT M. MCK NNA Attorney General JA C3 M. HO ELL, WSBA #35527 A 'istant Attorney General Attorney for Defendants Approved as to form and content* (5 ALAN PARMELEE, Plaintiff ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFPS 2 ATTORNEY GENERAL QF WASHINGTON MOTION TO DISMISS WITH PREIUDICE onoss- Olwnpia, WA93504-0116 (360) 586-1445 CLAIMS - NO. O7-2-0 295-5 SF-01884 PRR-2011-00450 THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON CHARLES V. REED, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, NO. 83108-4 ORDER Petitioner, No. 37442-1-II V. Respondent. 3 i Department I ofthe Court, composed of Chief Justice Alexander and Justices C. Johnson, Sanders, Owens and J. M. ohnson, considered this matter at its September 8, 2009, Motion Calendar and unanimously agreed that the following order be entered. A Mili- .v a- ITIS ORDERED: 3,3 That the Petitioner's Motion to Modify the Commissionefs Ruling isdeniedf DATED at Olympia, Washington this 3 day of September, 2009. If Ei* 'tiSF-01885 PRR-2011-00450 L11- IN THE SUPREME E,"T-CHARLES v. REED, 5 PetitionerDEPARTMENT CORRECTIONS, RUUNG DENYIN REVIEW Respondent. In an order entered January 7, 2009, this court ruled that Charles Reed's request for review in this Public Records Act case should be treated as an appeal by the Court of Appeals, and that Mr. Reed was not entitled to appeal at public expense but should be given a reasonable opportunity to pay the filing fee. Mr. Reed nonetheless pursued his indigency request in the Court of Appeals, which prompted a letter from that court's clerk informing Mr. Reed that this court had declined to authorize an expenditure of public funds and that Mr. Reed would have to pay the tiling fee or risk having his appeal dismissed. Mr. Reed's motion to modify the clerk's decision was denied by a panel of Court of Appeals judges on April 20, 2009. Mr. Reed now seeks this court's review of that decisiorrl Mr. Reed contends that he is entitled to review at public expense. But this court's January 7, 2009, order provides to the contrary. The court so ruled because Mr. Reed does not have a constitutional right to review at public expense, given the I Mr. Reed also seeks review of a Court of Appeals comrnissioner's ruling lifting a stay in the case. But as this court's clerk and deputy clerk have informed Mr. Reed, this court will not directly review a ruling of a Court of Appeals commissioner or clerk. RAP The proper method of objecting to such a ruling is to file a motion to modify, as permitted by RAP l7.7. Ser/ 16: SF-01886 PRR-2011 00450 NO. 83108-4 PAGE 2 nature of this lawsuit. See RAP 15.2, In re Grove, 127 Wn.2d 221, 238, 897 P.2d 1252 (1995). The court necessarily also concluded that it would not exercise its inherent authority to authorize an expenditure of public funds. And contrary to Mr, Reed's argument, in this kind of case this court, not the trial court, determines whether to enter an order of indigency. See RAP Thus, the Court of Appeals did not err or depart from accepted practice by informing Mr. Reed that he would have to pay the filing fee or risk having the appeal dismissed. RAP l3.5(b) (criteria for acceptance oi' review).2 Accordingly, the motion for discretionary review is denied. 1 June 19, 2009 2 Respondent Department of Corrections incorrectly relies on the criteria for acceptance of review found in RAP which apply only to discretionary review of decisions terminating review and those decisions listed in RAP See RAP 12.3 (forms of decisions); RAP 13.3 (decisions reviewed as a matter of discretion), RAP 13.4 (discretionary review of decision terminating review). Because the Court of Appeals decision did not terminate review unconditionally, see RAP l2.3(a) (defining "decision terminating review"), it is an interlocutory one under RAP and thus is subject to review under the criteria of RAP 13.5 (discretionary review of interlocutory decision). SF-01887 PRR-2011 00450 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II CHARLES REED, Appellant, A No. 37442-1-ll V- RULING DISMISSING APPEAL A DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 1 Resp ondent. rif- THIS MATTER came on for hearing of the clerk's motion to dismiss on the ground of abandonment. On January 29, 2009, the clerk ruled that Appellant must pay the tiling fee or have his appeal dismissed. On April 20, 2009, the judges of this Court denied Appellant's` motion to modify the Clerl<'s ruling. Appellant tiled a Notice of Discretionary Review to the Supreme Court, On June 19, 2009, the Commissioner of the Supreme Court entered a ruling denying review. Appellant tiled a motion to modify that ruling)on September 8, 2009, the justices denied it. To date, appellant has not paid the tiling fee. lt appears that the appeal was taken for delay and should be dismissed for Want of prosecution. RAP Accordingly, it is ORDERED that this appeal is dismissed. DATED this day 0 2009. COURT COMMISSIONER Amanda Marie l\/Iigchelhrinl< Charles Reed Attorney at Law 932245 D216-l PO Box 881000 PO Box 40116 McNeil Island Corr Olympia, WA, 98504-0001 Steilacoom, WA, 98388-1000 SF-01888 PRR-2011-00450 .FM 11239 Citi. f' ,l SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY Charles V. Ree? 'Plaintiff No. O6-2-00849-5 vs. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Department of Corrections VACATE Defendants. This matter comes on the motion of the Plaintiff to vacate the order of this court denying a motion to Show cause on Cb1'l13I'y 21, 2008. The Court, having reviewed the complete file in this case, including all documents filed by the plaintiff in support ofthe pending niotion, finds that the court lacks jurisdiction and that the motion to vacate is time-barred pursuant to CR 60. The motion to *vacate is denied. Dated: June 15, 2010. JUDGE DAVID L. EDWARDS forma pzupea-is order CX SF-01889 PRR-2011-00450 hm ;4"ffw_` ,i ann? 251% FILED Wy' .1 0 2007 Bring 5? 4. SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON SEN. Clerk COUNTY OF CLALLAM ALLAN PARMELEE, Plaintiff; 2 vs_ NO. oe-2-00502-6 OO . . HARULD CLARK, MEMORANDUM OPINION Defendant. RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT The Plaintifftiled a complaint for Public Disclosure Act violations on June 8, 2006. An answer was filed on July 14, 2006. Un March 8, 2007 Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs response was filed on April 24, 2007. A hearing on the Motion for Summary Judgment Was heard on May 4, 2007. Defendant's Motion to Amend: On April 26, 2007 the Defendant filed a motion to amend its answer to add an affirmative defense of violation of the statute of limitations. CRl5(a) provides that leave to amend "shall be freely given when justice so requires". Here, the Court can find no prejudice to the Plaintiff in authorizing the amendment. The Defendant was Well aware of the statute of limitations issue. He referenced it in his complaint and corresponded with the Defendant regarding the matter months before the present motion.. The issue was raised by the Defendant in his Motion Memorandum Opinion 1 GEORGE L- WOOD JUDGE Ctafiam County Superior Court 223 East Fourth Street, Suite 8 SF-01890 PRR-2011-00450 p-.for Summary Judgment filed on March 8, 2007, allowing the Plaintiff almost two months to prepare for argument. Consequently, the amendment to the Defendant's answer is more procedural at this point than substantive. Plaintiff's ability to present his case has not been compromised by the amendment. Furthermore, no trial has yet been set. May 8, 2000 Request: According to RCW 42.17.410 an action to enforce the provisions of the Public Disclosure Act (hereinafter PDA) "must commence within Hve years after the date when the violation occurred." The Plaintiffs May 8, 2000 request was received by the CBCC records unit on May 9, 2000. On May 16, 2000 a response to the request was issued stating "you will be placed on call out Mon or Tues to review your tile." No other documents responsive to the Plaintiffs request were ever made available to him. In the Plaintiff' request he made the following statement: "Make the records available Within tive days or I will file a disclosure enforcement action in Court." RCW 42.56.520 provides that responses to requests for public records "shall be made The May 16, 2000 response by the Defendant certainly qualities as Memorandum Opinion 2 GEORGE L- WOOD JUDGE Clallam County Superior Court 223 East Fourth Street, Suite 8 SF-01891 PRR-2011-00450 -Sr-(dh"prompt". The issue, therefore, stems on the Defendants' failure to provide the records requested. RCW 42.17.410 sets a tive year limitation from "the date when the violation occurred." The Defendant argues that the violation, if any, occurred on May 16, 2000 when it became clear that the Department would not release the records requested. Plaintiff argues that there is a factual issue as to the time of violation. Plaintiff hovvever, has provided no evidence in response to the State's motion alleging facts indicating a violation date other than May 16, 2000 or at a reasonable time thereafter. The Plaintiff filed his complaint over six years after the initial response. He never received the requested records and has failed to establish any reason not only for his delay but for setting a violation date within the tive year statute. He was fully aware of his rights and the statutory procedures for enforcement ofthe Act. June 8, 2005 Request: Plaintiff claims that the Department violated the PDA by not honoring his request that the records be supplied in electronic format. RCW 42.56.100 requires that each agency adopt reasonable rules and regulations for disclosure. According to the Court in Sappentield v. Dept. of Corr., 127 Wn. App. 83, 89 (2005), the statutory obligation is satisfied "by mailing copies at a reasonable charge". The Court went on to state as follows: Memorandum Opinion 3 GEORGE WOOD JUDG Clallam County Superior Court 223 East Fourth Street, Suite 8 SF-01892 PRR-2011-00450 "Prison inmates have access without charge to their own personal records. Access to additional public records can be obtained by means of copies mailed upon payment of a reasonable fee." Supra at 90. The Department has established a reasonable, court approved method of satisfying the requirements of the PDA. The statute authorizes the agency to set its own disclosure rules. It is not the prerogative of the "requester" to dictate the format, and for good reason. Such policy would create an unduly burdensome procedure for the agency and is not necessary to satisfy the intent of the Act. June 13, 2005 Request: The Defendant has by declaration stated that the June l3, 2005 request was never received by the public disclosure manager. There has been no declaration tiled by the Plaintiff in opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment. He has presented no facts in contradiction of the Department's statement that that 6/ 3/05 request was not in fact I. received. June 14, 2005 Request: The Court has reviewed the documents requested "in camera" and finds that at the time of the request there was in fact an ongoing investigation. Nondisclosure of the l\/lemorandimi Opinion 4 GEORGE L. WOOD JUDGE Clallam County Superior Court 223 East Fourth Street, Suite 8 SF-01893 PRR-2011-00450 investigator records was essential to effective law enforcement. Such records therefore qualify as a statutory exemption under CONCLUSION: Based upon the aforesaid Memorandum Opinion the Court shall grant the Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court will sign an order granting the motion upon presentation duly noted. DATED this g?27% day of 2007. ORG L. WOOD Memorandum Opinion 5 GEORGE L- WOOD JUDGE Clailam County Superior Court 223 East Fourth Street, Suite 8 SF-01894 PRR-2011-00450 The Honora David A urtz I Hearing Da Ju l, 2011 Hearing e: 9:30am (R) He mg ation: STATE OF RVASHINGTON iiliali; ani SNOHOMTSH COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT MATTHEW SILVA, A 1 Piaimifr a ORDER OF nrsivnssat WASHINGTON STATE 1 A DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, A Defendant. This matter came before tl1eCourt on Plaintiff Motion for Review of Agency Action Under the Public Records Act on May 27, 2011. The Court orally ruled, denying Plaintiffs motion and dismissing Plaintiffs action. In reaching its decision, the Court considered the oral argument of Plaintiff and Counsel for Defendant addition to the following pleadings of the parties: 1. Plaintiffs Motion for Review of Agency Action Under the Public Records Act, with attachments; . - 24. Defendanfs Motion to Strike and Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Review of Agency Action Underthe Public Records Act, with attachments and i_ 3.1 Plaintiffs Response to Defendanfs Motion to Strike and Reply to Defendanfs Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Review of Agency Action Under the Public -Records Act, with attachments. QRDER QF DISMISSAL 1 I ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON - Corre tions Di ision NO. 10-2306461-1 POGBOX 40126 -2- 51 ff ff f- Olympia, WA 98504-0116 SF-01895 PRR-2011-00450 The Court does herebyifind and ORDER: 1. Defendant did not violate the Public Records Act; 2. Plaintiff' Motion for Review of Agency Action Under the Public Records Act is 3. This case is DISMISSED WITH PREJU and - 4. Thegiidlerk of the Edv??si-Q is instructed to send uncertified copies of this Order to the Plaintiff and counsel for the Defendants. DATED this 13" day of ,2o11. AVID A. KURTZ Superior Court Judge Presented By: A RGBERT M. MCKENNA Attorne eral QVVL TIM LANG, WSBA 21314 Senior Assistant Attorney neral Attorney for Defendant QRDER QF DISMIS SAL ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 1' No. 10-2-06461-1 -??3??i?f40ii'?1?n Olympia, WA 98504-0116 nam SF-01896 PRR-2011-00450 tw 53 5 gwi, I "i it ?1333 ij EXPEDITE i M, aarr# ti anna El No Hearing Set Cl ating is Set rauaaren STATE OF WASHINGTON THURSTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT KEVIN MICHAEL MITCHELL, NO. 08~2~0l287~2 Plaintiff; ORDER v. WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant, This matter came before the Court on the Plaintiffs Motion for Order to Show Cause on December 5, 2008. The Court orally ruled, finding that Defendant violated RCW 42.56 the Public Records Act, as a matter of law. The Court found, however, that Defendant acted in good faith and that the Violation was the result of simple negligence. Additionally, the Court found that Plaintiffs public records request, assigned tracking number has been fully responded to by Defendant. In reaching its decision, the Court considered the oral argument of Plaintiff and Counsel for Defendant in addition to the following pleadings of the parties: I. Plaintiffs Motion for Order to Show Cause, with attached exhibits; and 2. Defendants' Response to Motion for Order to Show Cause, with attached exhibits. The Court does hereby find and ORDER: ORDER 1 GENERAL or wfxsi-iinoron _,fx Co ect` n. (rw, os-2-01257-2) $0 Olympia, WA 98504-OI 16 neo) 5864445 SF-01897 PRR-2011 00450 The Defendant failed to comply with RCW 42.56, et seq. in not responding to Plaintiffs public records request, assigned tracking numbcr in a timely manner; 2. The Defendanfs actions were in good faith and constitute simple negligence; therefore, the Defendants shall pay a penalty of $5.00 per day for 42 days for a total of $210.00 plus costs, to bc identified by Plaintifii to Plaintiff Kevin Michael Mitchell, pursuant to RCW 3. Public request number has been responded to fully; and 4. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to send uncertified copies of this Order to Plaintiff and for Counsel for Defendant. DATED this day of ij iitff' 2008. CHRIS WICKHANI i THE HONORABLE CHRIS WICKI-IAM Thurston County Superior Court Judge Presented By: ROBERT M. MCKENNA General SA LA J. OL. SBA #33003 Assistant Atto ey General Attorneys for Defendant GENERAL OF VVASHINGTON 2 01, 2 2 Corrections Division i (N - -45/'li Posawotie Olympia, WA 98504-Ol 16 (360) 536-|445 SF-01898 PRR-2011-00450 [fl EXPEDITE IZI No Hearing Set Hearing is Set Date: Time: The Honorable H. Christopher Wickham STATE OF WASHINGTON TIIURSTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT KEVIN MICHAEL MITCHELL NO. 08-2-01287-2 Plaintiff, RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT V. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant. This is a Release and Settlement Agreement for the above-referenced action. Based upon consideration and mutual promises, the Plaintifi KEVIN MICHAEL MITCHELL, by and through his attorney, JOHN C. ANDREWS, and the Defendant, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, by and through its attomcys, ROBERT M. MCKENNA, Attorney General, and SARA DI VITTORIO, Assistant Attorney General, agree to the following: 0 l. In consideration of the following provisions of the Release and Settlement Agreement, KEVIN MICHAEL MITCHELL, his heirs, assigns, or other successors in interest, do hereby release and forever discharge the State of Washington, its officers, agents, employees, agencies, and departments for any and all existing and future claims, damages and causes of action of any nature arising out of public records act as described in Plaintiffs Complaint, relating to his requests assigned numbers and PDU-655, in this action, made pursuant to RCW 42.56 et seq., and which are the source of his claims against the Defendant. RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 10-2.0233 5_5 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON Corrections Division PO Box 40116 Olympia, WA 98504-0116 (360) 586- l445 F-01 899 PRR-2011 00450 2. This Agreement is the final, conclusive and complete release of all known, as well as all unknown, and unanticipated damages arising out of the incidents set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint and the requests assigned numbers and PDU-655. 3. This Agreement shall he effective when signed by all parties and/or their legal representatives. 4. The State shall pay to KEVIN MICHAEL MITCHELL, the sum of Twenty~One Thousand Two Hundred Forty-Five Dollars and zero cents as full and complete settlement of this matter. This settlement sum includes costs, penalties, and attorney fees, if any. Payment of this amount to KEVIN MICHAEL MITCHELL satisfies all claims Plaintiff has against Defendant in this matter. Payment shall be een, .f ttf' I 5. The parties agree that this Release and Settlement Agreement is not an admission of liabilityor that any claim or defense advanced by any party lacks merit. 6. This Agreement constitutes the final written expression of all the terms of this Agreement and is a complete and exclusive' statement of these terms. 7. The parties agree that neither party is to he considered a prevailing party in this action for any purpose, including, but not limited to, attorney fees. 8. The parties jointly agree that dismissal with prejudice of this action is an appropriate resolution in consideration for payment of the sum of Twenty-One Thousand Two Hundred Forty-Five Dollars and zero cents and the other consideration provided for in this Agreement. The parties also agree to sign and file a stipulated motion for the entry of an order dismissing this action with prejudice. 9. The Plaintiff agrees and covenants not to sue the State of Washington or its agencies, employees, and officials over the claims concluded by this settlement agreement. li). The undersigned parties declare that the terms of this Release and Settlement Agreement are completely read, Wholly understood, and voluntarily accepted for the purpose RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 83 5_6 - 2 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON Corrections Division PO Box 401 16 Olympia, WA 9850401 I6 (360) 586-1445 F-01 900 PRR-2011 00450 of making a full and final compromise, adjustment, and settlement of any and all claims brought by Plaintiff in this action against DefendantVIN MICI-IA MITCHELL DATE Plaintiff 2 at iq; Hi; Q5-, 5/ JO - ll- . ANDREWS, WSBA #2l387 DATE Att for Plaintiffw flat) li/ KATQEI GAST ICA DATE Risk anager I Department of Corre ions fl It I ll SARAD VITTORIO, WSEA #33003 DATE Assistant Attorney General Attorney for Defendant RELEASE ANI) SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT . 19_2_02g3 5_5 3 ATTORNEY GENERAL or WASHINGTON Corrections Division PO Box 401 6 Olympia, WA 985U4~0l 16 (360) 586-1445 SF-01901 PRR-2011-00450 0 THE SUPREME CCURT OF WASHINGTOF1 KEVIN MICHAEL MITCHELL, No. 84553-1 Petitioner, I -3 V, I No. 38767-1-I F2 ff, WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF Ee CCRRECTICNS, is Tn rr mit, 'rs' - It It I 93 I-I fa; 'tl espon enDepartment I of the Court, composed of Chief Justice Madsen and Justices C. Johnson, Chambers, Fairhurst and Stephens, considered this matter at its March 29, 2011, Motion Calendar. The Court of Appeals previously entered a decision affirming the underlying superior court order in this Public Records Act case. While the petition for review ofthe Court of Appeals decision was pending in this Court, the Department of Corrections (DOC) discovered additional records responsive to petitioner's public records request. Petitioner filed a motion inthe superior court to vacate its order, which that court stayed pending the outcome of this review. DOC then moved this Court to dismiss the petition and remand the case to the superior court for further proceedings. This Court subsequently issued an order staying the petition and authorizing the superior court to rule on petitioner's motion to vacate its previous order. On February 11, 2011, the parties obtained a superior court order vacating the decision challenged on appeal. In light of these developments, and to clarify that the underlying Court of Appeals decision is no longer the law ofthe case as to this matter, Department I unanimously agreed that the following order be entered. PI 115 SF-01902 PRR-2011-00450 Page 2 No. 84553-1 ITIS ORDERED: That the stay is lifted, the Petition for Review is granted, the Court of Appeals decision is vacated, and the parties may resume litigation in the superior court. DATED at Olympia, Washington this day of1\/larch, 201 i. i For the Court CHIEPJUST ii' tw #i ii SF-01903 PRR-2011-00450 THE SUPREME COURT OP WASHINGTON KEVIN MICHAEL MITCHELL, NO. 845534 I Petitioner, I v_ C/Ano. 38767-1-ti ,gg 5.3 3,1 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF I E, CORRECTIONS, I ,512 tif 'jf MQ F1 Ld .E ff* Respondent:re Department II ofthe Court composed of Chief Justice Madsen and Justices Alexander, Charnbers, Fairhurst and Stephens, considered at its November 2, 2010, Motion Calendar, whether review should 'oe granted pursuant to RAP and unanimously agreed that the following order be entered. IT IS ORDERED: That the Respondent's motion to dismiss and remand is denied. Pursuant to RAP 7.2 and 8.3, the trial court is authorized to inle on the Petitioner's motion to vacate that court's previous order. This matter shall be stayed pending the trial court's determination on the motion to vacate. DATED at Olympia, Washington this ml day of November, 2010. For the Court /kfg lfa I Jnsrielf. abel SF-01904 PRR-2011-00450 - - LYIGURT UF 5 1] is ev IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TI-IE STATE OF WASHIN stan; *orders -it (Hit, DIVISION rr EP TY KEVIN MICHAEL MITCHELL, Nc. swear-rr I Appellant, . WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF UNPUBLISHED OPINION CORRECTIONS, Respondent. BRIDGEWATER, J. - Kevin Michael Mitchell appeals the trial court's order granting sanctions to Mitchell following a show cause hearing on Mitcliellis public records request to the Department of Corrections (Department). We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the amount of sanctions imposed against the Department. We affirm. FACTS On May 2, 2007, Mitchell sent a letter to the public records coordinator at Stafford Creek Corrections Center, Sheri Izatt, to inspect his "Written continuous chronological mail record." CP at 40. Mitchell further stated that the information he sought included the chronological rnail record of items with him, and all documents, tiles, notes, memorandums, and e~1nails pertaining to his mail records. He did not state the tiine period covered by the records request. 1 Izatt received Mitche11's request on May 7, 2007, and assigned it a tracking number, lzatt responded by letter dated May 8, 2007, acknowledging request, and explaining that under Department policy inmates could only directly inspect their own central SF-01905 PRR 2011 00450 38'767~l -II file and medical file. Since the requested documents were not in those files, Mitchell could not inspect them, but he could designate a non-incarcerated person to inspect such documents- The letter informed Mitchell that he could appeal the denial of his request. Izatt also provided Mitchell with an appeal form and instructions on how to proceed with an appeal. Mitchell replied in a letter to Izatt, dated May 23, 2007, and received by the Department on May 29, asking that the requested records he emailed to a designated non-incarcerated person. On May 29, 2007, lzatt sent Mitchell a letter asking him to specify the dates of the mail logs that he sought. Mitchell responded by letter, dated June 14, 2007, and received bythe Department on June 19, 2007, stating that he wished to "amend" his request, and obtain mail log entries tc include incoming, outgoing and legal mail from January 9, 2007 to the present date [of June 14, 2007]." CP at 50, In ia letter to lzatt dated July l, 2007, Mitchell submitted a second records request, this time seeking records related to selected mail logs regarding- interception of his mail by the Departrnent's lntelligence and Investigations Unit from January 10, 2007, through lluly l, 2007. This letter was forwarded to the Departments Public Disclosure Unit in Olympia for processing. The letter arrived at the public disclosure unit in Olympia on July 9, 2007, where it was processed and responded to by a public disclosure specialist, Gaylene Schave. Schave assigned this request tracking number PDU-655, and so informed Mitchell in a letter on July 16, 2007, iive business days after Schave received Mitchell's second records request. Schave also informed Mitchell that the records he sought could not be delivered as e~mail attachments as he requested, that she was gathering copies of the requested mail logs, and that she would contact him within i5 business days. 2 SF-01906 PRR 2011 00450 38767~l~ll Fifteen calendar days later, on July 31, 2007, Scliave sent Mitchell a letter notifying him that there were two pages of incoming and outgoing mail logs responsive to his request, and that the copies would be mailed to him after the Department received payment for copying and postage. The letter also stated, "[There] are no documents responsive to the portion of your request for records of your mail going to the l&l Office, therefore none will be provided." CP at 56. The letter referenced only one tracking number, CP at 56. By letter dated September 10, 2007, and received at the Departments Public Disclosure Unit on September 13, Mitchell asked the Department to Search the l&I records again, "to be absolutely certain there is no log of mail being routed to the office." CP at 58. Five business days after receiving his letter, Sohave responded that although l&l stated that there are no responsive records, another search would be conducted. This letter also noted that two pages of responsive documents would be mailed to Mitchell upon receipt of payment. Schave sent a follow up letter (dated September 27, 2007) to Mitchell stating that she checked with "all facilities and mail room staff," and that there were no logs of l&l, mail room staff, oranyone' else intercepting MitchelI's'mail. CP at 60. The letter stated, "Since no documents exist on this portion of your request, none will be provided." DP at 60 (emphasis added). The letter reiterated that two pages of incoming and outgoing logs (responsive to Mitchell's first request) had been collected and would be mailed to Mitchell upon receipt of payment. 3 Although this letter referenced only the tracking number linked to Mitchell's request for intercepts, and noted no such documents existed, the letter's mention of two pages of available mail logs indicated that it also addressed Mitchel1's earlier request for all mail logs, but simply failed to include the appropriate tracking number, which designated prior request. 3 SF-01907 PRR 2011 00450 38767-l-Il On November 21, 2007, Mitchell remitted payment for the documents. Seven business days later, 'en November 30, 2007, Schave mailed to Mitchell two pages of incoming and outgoing mail logs showing activity from January through July of 2007. On September 30, 2008, Mitchell moved for an order to show cause Why he should not be awarded penalties for the Department's violations ofthe Public Records Act (PRA), alleging that the Department never responded to his request for documents under The Department appeared and provided documentation that after paying for the records, Mitchel] received the docmnents responsive to his amended first request. The Departmenfs response included Schave's declaration, in which Schave averrd that she was the public disclosure specialist who had Written the unit's November 30 letter, which accompanied the two pages of mail logs, and all of the unit's previous letters to Mitchell that mentioned the two pages of available mail logs. Schavc admitted that she inadvertently failed to include the tracking number in each letter, although the tvvo pages of mail logs addressed request designated by that tracking number. The tvvo pages of mail logs in question included entries from January through July of 2007 and thus included the time period of both of requests, (January 10 through July of 2007) and (January 9 through June I4 of 2007). Schave also declared that there are no additional documents responsive to Mitchell's amended first request, The trial court ruled that although the Department had produced all responsive records to request the Departments response was untimely, and the Department's delay was 42 days. In setting a penalty for that delay, the court concluded that the Department acted in good 4 SF-01908 PRR 2011 00450 3 8767-1-II faith and the delay constituted simple negligence. The court therefore ordered the Department to pay a penalty of $5.00 per day for 42 days, plus costs. Mitchell appealed. A DISCUSSION PRA2 Mitchell challenges the trial court's determination in two Ways. I-le contends that the court erred in ruling that the Department provided all records regarding his request, and that the court erred in its penalty determination. We disagree with both contentions. We review questions of law concerning the proper application of the PRA de novo. Yousoufian v. Ojjice of Ron Sims, 152 Wn.2d 421, 430, 98 P.3d 463 (2004); Progressive Animal Webinre S0632 v. Univ. Of Wash., 125 Wn.2d 243, 252, 884 P.2d 592 (1994). We review a trial oourt's penalty determination under the PRA for an abuse of discretion. Yousoufian, 152 Wn.2d at 431. 4 The purpose ofthe PRA is to provide "full access to information concerning the conduct of government on every level . . as a fundamental and necessary precondition to the sound governance of a free society." RCW The public records portion ofthe act, RCW requires all state and iocal agencies to disclose any public record upon request, unless it falls within certain specific enumerated exemptions. Sperr v. City of Spokane, 123 Wn. .-Q-1 2 As a threshold matter, the Department contends that Mitchell's record requests were not properly submitted becausetlrey were not mailed to the Departments public records officer in Olympia, or emailed to the Department's public records unit, as required by WAC 137-08-090. But the Department relies on the current version of the WAC, as amended in 2008, which so provides. record requests at issue were submitted in 2007 and the version of the WAC in effect at that time required oniy that the record request be made in writing to the public disclosure coordinator so designated by each departmental administrative unit. See WAC 137- 08-080; former WAC 137-08-090 (1982). 5 SF-01909 PRR 2011 00450 38767-1-II App. 132, 136, 96 P.3d 1012 (2004); King County v. Sheehan, 114 Wn. App. 325, 335, 57 P.3d 307 (2002); RCW The requested record must be made available "for public inspection and copying." RCW The Department of Corrections is an "agency" subject to the act's provisions. RCW 42.56.010(l) (detining agency to include every state department). I Public records subject to inspection under the act include (1) any Writings (2) that contain information related to the "conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function" and (3) that are "prepared, owned, used, or retained by any state or local agency regardless of physical form or characteristics." RCW RCW However, an agency has "no duty to create or produce a record that is nonexistent." Sperr, 123 Wn. App. at 136-37 (citing Smith v. Okanagan County, 100 Wn. App. 7, 13-l4, 994 P.2d 857 (2000)) Moreover, just as the act "does not provide 'a right to citizens to indiscriminately sift through an agency's tiles in search of records or information which cannot be reasonably identified or described to the agency," Sperr, 123 Wn. App. at 137 (quoting v. Ladenlinrg, 136 Wana 595, 605 11.3. 963 ses (1998); the act "sees net) authorize indiscriminate sifting through an agency's files by citizens searching for records that have been derizonstrated not to exist." Speer, 123 App. at 137 (emphasis added). Mitchell's contention that the trial court erred in determining that the Department had produced all responsive documents pertaining to his request is essentially a fact inquiry. Mitchell contended to the trial court, as he does on appeal, that the Department never gave him any documents designated as responding to And to the present time, he contends, the Department has failed to produce such documents. While it is true that the record 6 SF-01910 PRR 2011 00450 contains no evidence the Department provided Mitchell with any documents specifically labeled as responsive to the tracking number, it is equally apparent that the two pages of mail log entries that the Department did provide Mitchell address the substance of the 947 request as amended in Mitehel1's June 14, 2007, letter. As noted, Schave averted that the two pages of log entries regarding Mitchel1's mail activity indeed addressed but she inadvertently neglected to include that tracking number on her correspondence With Mitchell. A fair reading of the letters from Schave to Mitchell supports Schave's averrnent. The letters repeatedly state that there are no documents responsive to PDU2655, but at the same time indicate that two pages of responsive mail log entries Will be mailed to Mitchell upon his payment of copying and postage. The discrepancy makes sense if the two pages of responses mentioned in the letters refer to a request for documents other than Schave also averted that there are no additional documents responsive to as amended in Mitche11's June 14, 2007, letter. Mitchell contends on appeal, as he did to the trial court, that there must be more documents. But he offers no evidence other than his own belief that more documents exist. The iPRAis requirement to provide a 'specitic exemption when denying a request for public documents applies to "the situation Where the agency has the records but says, 'We are not going to give them to you' . . . [rather than Where the agency says] 'we do not have these records." Dczines v. Spokane County, 111 Wn. App. 342, 348, 44 P.3d 909 (2002). See also Smith, 100 Wn. App. at l3~l4 (agency has no duty to create -a record in response to a request; only existing records must be provided). Accordingly, there is "no agency action to review" under the PRA Where the agency did not deny the requestor an opportunity to inspect or copy a public record, because the public record he sought "did ~not exist." Sperr, 123 7 SF-01911 PRR 2011 00450 Wn. App. at 137. See also Kleven v. City of Des Moines, 111 Wn. App. 284, 294, 44 P.3d 887 (2002) (no violation ofthe public disclosure act because the agency had "made available all that it could Smith, 100 Wn. App. at 22 (when county had nothing to disclose, its failure to do so was proper). See also Harzgartner v. City of Seattle, 151 Wn.2d 439, 447-48, 90 P.3d 26 (2004) (public disclosure act requires agencies to produce only identifiable public records). Hcrc, the record supports the trial court's conclusion that the Department had fully responded to and we so hold. Sanctions As noted, the trial court ruled that although the Department had fully responded to Mitche1l's request, its response was untimely, and thus the court imposed sanctions of $5 per day for each ofthe 42 days that the Department delayed in making the responsive mail logs available to The court specifically noted that it was imposing a $5 day penalty because the Departnient's actions were in good faith and constituted simple negligence. Mitchell contends that the Department acted in bad faith, the trial court's calculation of penalty days is incorrect, and the amount of penalties imposed is insufticient. We disagree with each contention. As noted, we review the trial ccu1t's penalty award for abuse of discretion. Yousoufion, 152 Wn.2d at 431. The PRA's penalty provision is intended to discourage improper denial of access to public records and providesf 3 The sanction reflected the 42 calendar days between June 19, 2007, and July 31, 2007. The first date was when the Department received Mitchell's June 14, 2007, letter that amended his request. The latter datc was when Schave tirst Mitchell that two pages of responsive mail logs were available. 8 SF-01912 PRR 2011 00450 3 87674-II Any person who prevails against an agency in any action in the courts seeking the right to inspect or copy any public record or the right to receive a response to a public record request within a reasonable amount of time shall be awarded all costs, including reasonable attorney fees, incurred in connection with such legal action. In addition, it shall be Within the discretion of the court to award such person an amount not less than tive dollars and not to exceed one hundred dollars for each day that he or she was denied the right to inspect or copy said public record. RCW 42.56.550(4) (formerly RCW (2005)); Yousotyian, 152 Wn.2d at 429-30. Under this provision, the trial court has discretion to set the per day penalty between $5 and $100, but it must impose a penalty for each day that access is denied. Yousozyian, 152 Wn.2d at 437. Thus, the process for determining the appropriate PRA award requires' two steps: (1) determining the amount of days the party was denied access and (2) determining the appropriate per day penalty between $5 and $100 depending on the agency's actions. Yousotgian, 152 Wn.2d at 438. The first step is a question of fact, and the second step lies Within the trial cou1t's discretion. Yousozjian, 152 Wn.2d at 439. Here, the record supports the trial court's calculation of 42 days. Mitchell contends that because in has never received any recordifrom the ldepartnient for the calculation of PRA violation days is ongoing and thus the trial court's determination of 42 days is incorrect. This argument fails for the reasons discussed above, namely that the trial court correctly determined that the Department has fullyiresponded to l\'Iitchell's request. As for the proper determination of the per day penalty, the existence or absence of an agency's bad faith is the principal factor which the trial court must consider, 152 Wn.2d at 435. in Yousoujicm, our Supreme Court held that assessing a minimum penalty of $5 a day was unreasonable Where the agency had acted with gross negligence. Yousoufarz, 152 9 SF-01913 PRR 2011 00450 Wn.2d at 439.4 Here, because the trial court found that the Department acted with good faith and simple negligence, We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a $5 per day penalty. Mitchell contends that the Department acted in bad faith, alleging that the Department backdated its May 8, 2007, letter responding to Mitchell's initial request for documents, He points to a copy of a used Department envelope that is postmarked May l6, 2007, alleging that this proves both thebaclrdating and the Depa1tment's bad faith. This is the same argument that he made to the triai court. The trial court also had Schave's declaration, which averred that Izatt responded to initiai request on May 8, 2007. The trial court's ruling attests that the court found the Departmenfs evidence more persuasive. Although the court did not make a separate iinding that the Departmenfs May 8 letter was not backdated, that determination necessarily inheres in the decision that the Department acted in good faith. Cf v. Win/cefman, 126 Wn. App. 655, 66l~62, l09 P.3d 47 (2005) (generally, a fact inheres in the fact tinder's decision if it relates to the effect of evidence or events upon the mind of the fact finder, or is directly associated with the fact iinder's reasons, intent, motive, or belief, when reaching her decision). A Mitchell also contends that the $5 per day penalty is insufricient, arguing that the backdating established bad faith, and the Department has never responded to the request. As discussed above, contentions fail, and thus provide no basis for attacking Both parties rely on the multiple factors addressed in Yousoujian v. Ojjice ofSims, 165 Wn.2d 43 9, 200 P.3d 232 (2009) (Yousoujtan IV), but the mandate was recalled in that case by Supreme Court order dated June 12, 2009. The case was reargued on September 22, 2009, and a decision is pending. Accordingly, we do not address that case. 4 10 SF-01914 PRR 2011 00450 the propriety of the trial court's exercise of discretion in setting the per day penalty amount. Thus, We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining sanctions. Attorney Fees Mitchell seeks costs and statutory attorney fees for pursuing this appeal. As noted above the PRA's penalty provision provides for costs and fees to the prevailing party. See RCW That provision also applies to appeals. Progressive Animal Weifczre Soc 31, 125 Wn.2d at 27l. But by its terms, the provision awards costs and fees to the prevailing party. Mitchell has not prevailed on appeal, Thus we decline to award him fees for this appeal. Afiirrned. A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 206.040, it is so ordered. Bridgewater, J. We concur: &s A Houghton, .J I Hunt, J. ll SF-01915 PRR-2011-00450 EXPEDITE 1 A |21 No Hearin%Set . 1 ARR 2151 2% i Hearing is et Date: 1 I 1_ 1, ,1 Judge Richard D. Hicks STATE- OF -WASHINGTON THURSTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ROBERT EARL JOHNSON, NO. O9-2413002-O P1aintifr`, ORDER V. 1 [Proposed] STATE OP WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, This rnatter Caine before the Court on the P1aintiff's Motion ior an Order to Show Cause on March 12, 2010, The Court ora11y ru1ed. The Court considered the oral arguinent of P1aintiff and Counsel for Defendant in addition to the following p1eadings of the parties: 1. P1ain_tii`f' Motion for an Order to Show Cause, Wit11attao11ed exhibits; 2. Defendant's Response to P1aintif1"s Motion for an Order to Show Cause; and P1aintiff's Reply to Defe11da11t's Response to Plaintiffs Motion for an Order to Show Cause, with attached exhibits. 1 The Court does hereby tind and ORDER: 1. P1ainti1'f' oiainis are time barred pursuant to RCW and QRDER 1 A'rro1u~1nY GENERAL OF [Propose Corrections Division PO Box 40116 No. 09-2-03002-O Olympia, WA 98504-0116 (seo) 586-1445 SF-01916 PRR-2011-00450 2. Plaintiff' claims are DISMISSED, VVITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to send nncertified copies of this Order to Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant. DATED this of #li gf; ,zoin i HONORABLE 1- 'ii Hiens Subniitted by: ROBERT M. MCKENNA Att rney neral ARA J. WSBA #33003 Agreed as to - noe EA SON Plaintiff ORDER 2 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON tPropos@d] NO. U9-2-03002-0 WA 93504-0116 (360) 586-1445 SF-01917 PRR-2011-00450 5 -Aga 63: px Mmmf_,_gfV CHARLES anno, NO- 820732 Petitioner, 0 3 No. 37442El-ll; DEP/\RTi\/rant or eonaeeriows, Respondent. up i ?5 as Department ll of the Court, composed of Chief Justice Alexander anti Jusuiies Chambers, Fairhurst and Stephens (Justice C. Johnson sat for Justice Fairhurst), considered this matter at its January 6, 2009, Motion Calendar and unanimously agreed that the following order be entered. ITIS That the Petitionefs Motion for Discretionary Review is granted and this case is renianded to the Court ol' Appeals for processing as an appeal of right. lt is further ordered that the Appellant is not entitled to appeal at public expense but should be given a reasonable opportunity to pay the filing fee. DATED at Olympia, Washington this 145 day of anuary, 2009. or the Court JUST /no li SF-01918 PRR-2011-00450 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION II MATTHEW G. SILVA, A Appellant, A A Lp f? N0.39439-1-II Q1 ei RULING APPEAL f9\ 'La OF wAsPiiNccTON, DEPARTMENT OP Q, ig; CORRECTIONS, Respondent. l\ THIS MATTER comes before the undersigned to dismiss the above-entitled appeal as it appears to have been abandoned. A review Of the Tile indicates that the Appellanfs brief and clerl<'s papers has not been filed as previously Ordered inthe Conditional Ruling Of Dismissal and that dismissal is warranted. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the above-entitled appeal is dismissed. DATED this Of 2010. I . I COURT Matrliew Silva Sara Olson 957176 l3l3 13th Ave UE T-W C-l l6 Attorney Generals Office WA State Penitentiary PO BOX 40116 Walla Walla, WA, 99362 Olympia, WA, 98504-0116 SF-01919 PRR-2011-00450 2:30 191 \i .3-Q., f? 1 FILED 1 E3 EXPEDITE Umgf 8 PH 2* 39 No Hearing Set 5 - XI-Iearing is Set: pt; Date: . -J - Time: nowf ludge: Thomas McPhee STATE OF THURSTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT MATTHEW G. SILVA, NO. O8-2-00997-9 Plaintiff; ORDER GRANT ING DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS (PRGPOSED) WASHINGTON STATE - DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, - ACTION REQUIRED - Defendant. This matter came before the Couit on Dcfeudaiifs Motion to Dismiss on Fehiuary 20, 2009. The Court orally ruled, grantiog Defendantfs motion.. In reaching its decision, the Couit considered the oral argument of Plaintiff and Counsel for Defendant in addition to the Defendanfs Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff did not file a written response to Defendanfs motion. The Court does hereby find and ORDER: Pla;intiff's claim is not properly brought under the Public .Records Act RCW 42.56, et seq; 2. Defenda11t's Motion to Dismiss is GRAN 3. This 'ease is DISMISSED and i ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANFS 1 ATTORNEY MOTION TO Dmiss qpaososaoy (NO. O8-2-00997-9) oiympia, WA 98504-0116 (360) 586-1445 SF-01920 PRR-2011-00450 4. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to send uncertified copies of this Order to the Plaintiff and counsel for the Defendants. DATED this 7" Lday of 2009. THOMAS MC I-IEE Honorable Judge Presented By: ROBERT M. MCKENNA Att rneyG er 1 J. OL WSBA #33003 Assistant Att meys General Attorney for Defendant ORDER GRANTING DEFENDAJWS 2 GENERAL QF MDTIDN TO DMSS (PROPOSED) (NO, 08-2-00997-9) WA 98504-0116 (360) 586-1445 SF-01921 PRR-2011-00450 THE SUPREME COURT its RONALD R. CARPENTER STATE OF WASHINGTON TEMPLE CF JUSTICE SUPREME COURT CLERK ,a Ro. sox 40929 as5c4-0929 SUSAN L. CARLSON (seo) 357-2077 DEPUTY CLERK CHIEF STAFF ATTORNEY ff e5? mg vvww.CoL.|rts.wa.gov November 16, 2010 it Charles V. Reed Hon. Cheryl Brown, Clerk it 932245 Grays Harbor County Superior Court Airway Heights Corrections Center 102 Broadway Avenue PO Box 2049 Montesano, WA 985633621 Airway Heights, WA 99001-2049 Sara J. Di Vittorio Office of the Attorney General PO Box 40116 Olympia, WA 98504-0001 Re: Supreme Court No. 848798 - Charles V. Reed v. Department of Corrections Grays Harbor County Superior Court No. 06-2~00849~5 Clerk, Counsel and Mr. Reed: By letter dated October 6, 2010, Mr. Reed was advised that the $280 tiling fee must be paid to the Grays Harbor Superior Court and a copy of the receipt for payment provided to this Court by not later than November 8, 2010. As of this date, this Court has received nothing from Mr. Reed indicating that the tiling fee has been paid. Accordingly, the following ruling is entered: This matter, Supreme Court No. 848796, is hereby dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee for an appeal. Sincerely, Susan L. Carlson Supreme Court Deputy Clerk it tut- W, :gy era- 05' SF-01922 PRR-2011-00450 gf ri THE ali ERN The Hondiiahle Dave Edwards Hearing Date: . firing Time: 99 HAY 20 Lo cation: 'fi 'f CLERK STATE OF WASHINGTON GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT BRIAN DAVID MATTHEWS, No. 07~2-0l620~S Plaintiff, (PRoPcsEn) V. onoss WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant. The Court, having heard Plaintiffs oral motion to voluntarily dismiss his Complaint, the briefing submitted hy Defendant regarding dismissal with prejudice, and the reniaining record; do es hereby find and ORDER: l. Plaintiff?s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal is 2. The Plaintiffs claims against Defendant are DISMISSED, with prejudice. 3. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to send uncertitied copies of this Order to the Plaintiff and counsel for Defendant. DATED this day of 2009. EDWARD Presented By: ROBERT M. MCKENNA Att?J1ne3yGeneral SARA J. WSBA #33003 Assistant Attorneys General (PRQPOSED) GRDER 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON Corrections Division (NO. 07-2-01620-8) PO BOX 40, 6 Olympia, WA 9S504~0l I6 (360) 5864445 SF-01923 PRR-2011-00450 if ifww @3525 Ji, W., W, jx Dave Edwards IQ - ?25 15, Date. Time: lfe?r?ng Location: TR 20 1 ,>>us~iaaewe . i?ii if is fl ie ii STATE OF WASHINGTON GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT BRIAN DAVID MATTHEWS, NO. 07-2-01620-8 Plaintifi (PROPOSED) v. ORDER WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant. The Court, having lieard Plaintiff" oral inotioi briefing submitted by Defendant regarding dismissal does hereby ind and ORDER: ii 1. Plaintiffs Motion forVolunta1'y Disnii lit?fl?i ii . . . . 1742. ikirf 2. The claims against Defendan 3. The Clerk of the Court is instiucted tc the Plaintiff and counsel for the Defendant. DAntn>naS~ dayof 261/ ,2oo9 i DRVI EDWARDS JUDGE EDWARDS I I Presented By: I ROBERT M. MCKENNA Att rney neral QA, A gb; ARA J. N, WSBA #33003 Assistant A torneys General (PRQPOSED) QRDER 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL OE WASHINGTON (NO. COITCCIIOHS DIVISION PO Box 40116 Olympia, WA 98504-0116 (360) 586-1445 SF-01924 PRR-2011-00450 3" if ii 5.3F CQUHT LIU Vi' 08 JAN 25 |34 514 'iff-I WH CGUHTY ST OF WA DEPT OF CORRECTIQNS ORDER UF DISMISSAL SF-01925 PRR-2011 00450 -O oar 1, zoos -3 i am, gn.-or Ci.iiRi\f (21-55-ZH Ur COURT IN THE SUPERIOR couafr os THE STATE or WASHINGTON IN AND Fon THE COUNTY or sNoHoM1sH STEVEN VOLSTAD NO. A Plaintiff; STIPULATED ORDER OF v. DISMISSAL DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant. A THIS MATTER, having come before this Court on the stipulated motion of the parties, and both parties herein advising the Court that all matters in controversy between the Plaintiff; Steven Volstad, and the Defendant, Department' of Corrections, have been fully settled and compromised, and the cotut Having been advised in the tl" 5 . It premises, now, therefore,' . IT is HEREBY ORDERED, that P1aintiff_Steven Volstad's claims against the Defendant Department of Corrections, in the above-referenced cause of action, are hereby dismissed with prejudice and without costs or* attorney fees to either party. A STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL 1 (NO. P0 Box 40116 Olympia, WA98504-0116 (360) 5ss1445 -4 SF-01926 PRR-2011-00450 - The clerk is directed to send copies of this otder to counsel 'for Plaintiff and counse1for_Defend?u1t. 7 1' i- .f'Z DATED this 2(l09. - 1; . A . Presented by: ROBERT MCKENNA Attorney General to tom SARA J. OL N, BA #33003 Assistant Attorney General Attorney for 'Defendant KAHRS LAW FIRM, P.S. _f - Rs,WsEA#27os5 DATE Attorney for Plaintiff - . STIPULATED ORDER OF DISMISSAL 2 I (N0- 03-2-06034-7) . PO Em 40116 Olympia, WA 16 (360) 586-1445 1 SF-01927 PRR-2011-00450 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OE THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SNOI-IOMISH STEVEN VOLST AD, NO. 08-2-06048-7 Plaintiff; RELEASE AND v. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant. This is a Release and Settlement Agreement for the above-referenced action. Based upon consideration and mutual promises, the Plaintifi STEVEN VOLSTAD, by and through his attorney, MICHAEL KAHRS, and the Defendant, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, by and through their attorneys, ROBERT M. MCKENNA, Attorney General, and SARA OLSON, Assistant'Attorney General, agree to the following: l. In consideration of the following provisions of the Release and Settlement Agreement, STEVEN VOLSTAD, his heirs, assigns or other successors in interest, do hereby release and forever discharge the State of Washington, its officers, agents, employees, agencies, and departments for any and all existing and future claims, damages and causes of action of any nature arising out of public disclosure requests as RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON . C. . t. D. . AGREEMENT (No. os-2-o604s~7) Olympia, WA 98504-01 16 (360) 586-1445 SF 01928 PRR 2011 00450 described in Plaintiff Complaint in this action, made pursuant to RCW 42.56 et seq., and which are the source of his claims against the Defendant. 2. This Agreement is the final, conclusive and complete release of all known, as Well as all unknown and unanticipated damages arising out ofthe incidents Set forth in Plaintiff' Complaint for Damages. 3. This Agreement shall be effective when signed by all parties and/or their legal representatives. 4. The State shall pay directly to MICHAEL KAHRS, as the designated payee of Plaintiff STEVEN the sum of Fifteen Thousand Dollars and zero cents as full and complete settlement of this matter. This settlement sum includes costs, penalties and attorney fees, if any. The settlement amount of Fifteen Thousand Doilars and zero cents will be payable by check or warrant to MICHAEL KAHRS, as the designated payee for Plaintiff STEVEN VOLSTAD. Plaintiff represents to Defendant that MICHAEL KAHRS has been authorized by him to accept payment of the settlement amount nom Defendant and that such acceptance satisfies all claims Plaintiff has against Defendant in this matter. 5. The parties agree that this Release and Settlement Agreement is not an admission of liability or that any claim or defense advanced by any party lacks merit. 6. This Agreement constitutes the final Written expression of all the terms of this Agreement and is a complete and exclusive statement of these terms. 7. The parties agree that neither party is to be considered a prevailing party in this action for any purpose, including, but not limited to, attorney fees. 8. The parties jointly agree that dismissal with prejudice of this action is an appropriate resolution in consideration for payment of the sum of Fifteen Thousand Dollars and zero cents and the other consideration provided for in this RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT 2 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON . I D. . AGREEMENT (No. os-2-06048-7) Olympia, WA 98504-0116 (360) 586-1445 SF-01929 PRR-2011-00450 Agreement. The parties also agree to sign and file a stipulated motion for the entry of an order dismissing this action With prejudice. 9. The Plaintiff agrees and covenants not to sue the State of Washington or its agencies, employees and officials over the claims concluded by this settlement agreement. 10. The undersigned parties declare that the terms of this Release and Settlement Agreement are completely read, wholly understood and voluntarily accepted for the purpose of making a full and final compromise, adjustment and settlement of any and all claims brought by Plaintiff in this action against Defendant. STEVEN VOLSTAD #9293 69 Plaintiff A A fo if 9? CHAEL KAHRS, 27085 DATE Attorney for Plaintiff Q4/ft./if? Fang" 'Qi KATHY GASTRETCH DATE Risk Manager Department of Corrections <5 cm y. i SARA J. OL A WSBA #33003 DAT Assistant Attorney General Attorney for Defendant RELEASE AND 3 OPWASHINGTON AGREEMENT (NO. os-2-06048-7) Olympia, WA 98504-0| 16 (360) 586-1445 SF-01930 PRR-2011-00450 A Rafi 1 A3 A RECEWED 42% QQ Ot F1163 CQRRECTIGMS its .f EUR STATE OF WASHINGTON SNOHOMISH COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT Jir/E NO. io-2-08660-7 A Plaintiff, STTPULATED ORDER OP WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, - Defendant. THIS MATTER having come before the undersigned Judge of the above-entitled Court, and based upon the attached Stipulation for Dismissal ofthe parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that PlaintifFS claims against Defendant in the above- referenced cause of action are hereby dismissed with prejudice and the Court will not retain jurisdiction over this matter. DATED this day of tilt 5? 1375353 A, Presented By: ROBERT M. MCKENNA Agreed as to form: Attorney General QQ SARA J. VITTORIO, WSBA #33003 HMI ILTON Assistant Attorney General Pro Plaintiff Attorney for Defendant STIPULATED ORDER OE DISMISSAL 1 NO. 10-2-0283 5-6 Olympia, WA 98504-0116 (seo) 586~lLl4? SF-01931 PRR-2011-00450 STATE OF WASHINGTON SNOHOMISH COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT .HMI HAMILTON, NO. 10-2-08660-7 Plaintiff, RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT V. WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant. This is a Release and Settlement Agreement for the above-referenced action. Based upon consideration and mutual promises, the Plaintiff, JIMT HAMILTON, and the Defendant, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, by and through its attorneys, ROBERT M. MCKENNA, Attorney General, and SARA I Dl VITTORIO, Assistant Attorney Creneral, agree to the following: l. in consideration of the following provisions of the Release and Settlement Agreement, HMI HAMILTON, his heirs, assigns or other successors in interest, do hereby release and forever discharge the State of Washington, its officers, agents, employees, agencies, and departments for any and all existing and future claims, damages and causes of action of any nature arising out of public records act as' described in Plaintiffs Complaint, relating to his request made to MCC-SOU on May l3, 2010, to inspect his central tile, in this action, made pursuant to RCW 42.56 et seq., and which are the source of his claims against the Defendant. RELEASE AND AGREEMENT NO. 103-0233 5_5 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL or WASHINGTON Corrections Division PO Box 401 16 Olympia, WA 9850401 E6 (360) 586-1445 SF-01932 PRR-2011 00450 2. This Agreement is the final, conclusive and complete release of all known, as Well as all unknown and unanticipated damages arising out of the incidents set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint and the relating to his request made to MCC-SOU on May l3, 2010, to inspect his central tile. 3. This Agreement shall be effective when signed by all parties and/or their legal representatives. 4. The State shall pay to HMI HAMILTON, the sum of One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars and zero cents as full and complete- settlement of this matter. This settlement sum includes costs, penalties and attorney fees, if any. Payment of this amount to Jll\/ll HAMILTON satisfies all claims Plaintiff has against Defendant in this matter. Payment shall be deposited into Plaintiff' inmate account and shall be subject to mandatory deductions. 5. The parties agree that this Release and Settlement Agreement is not an admission of liability or that any claim or defense advanced by any party lacks merit. 6. This Agreement constitutes the final Written expression of all the terms of this Agreement and is a complete and exclusive statement of .these terms. 7. The parties agree that neither party is to be consideredia prevailing party in this action for any purpose, including, but not limited to, attorney fees. 8. The parties jointly agree that dismissal with prejudice of this action is an appropriate resolution in consideration for payment of the sum of One Thousand Five Htindred Dollars and zero cents and the other consideration provided for in this Agreement. The parties also agree to sign and file a stipulated motion forthe entry of an order dismissing this action with prejudice. 9. The Plaintiff agrees and covenants not to sue the State of Washington or its agencies, employees and officials over the claims concluded by this settlement agreement. RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT N0 10_2_0233 5_6 2 ATTORNEY GENERAL or Corrections Division PO Box 40l 16 Olympia, WA 98504-0116 {360) 586-1445 SF-01933 PRR-2011 00450 10. The undersigned parties declare that the terms of this Release and Settlement Agreement are completely read, wholly understood and voluntarily accepted forthe purpose of making a full and final compromise, adiustment and settlement of any and all claims brought by Plaintiff in this action against Defendant. U. A va Qc 0 .HMI ILTON DA Pro Se, aintiff I/el' lf? 3 DATE Risk anage Department of Co ~-*ctions SARA J. VITTORIO, WSBA #33003 DATE Assistant Attorney General Attorney for Defendant RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT Ng 10-2-0281-35-6 3 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON Correc ions Divison PO litox 401161 oiympia, WA 93504-oi is (360) 586-1445 SF-01934 PRR-2011-00450 ,ave Edwards ji 1; sa; 215. 'a'aHca1ing Date: Hearing Time: 1131123 1 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT BRIAN DAVID MATTHEWS, NO. 07-2-01620-8 Plaintiff, V. ORDER WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OP CORRECTIONS, Defendant. Iiletgr?ng Location: The Court, having heard Plaintiffs oral motion to voluntarily dismiss his Complaint, the briefing submitted by Defendant regarding dismissal with prejudice, and the remaining record; docs hereby iind and ORDER: l. Plaintiff' Motion for Voluntary Dismissal is 2. The claims against Defendant are DISMISSED, with prejudice. 3. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to send uncertified copies of this Order to the Plaintiff and counsel forthe Defendant. ii A DATED this QI 3 dayfof . ,2cc9. 3 DTAVID EDWARDS JUDGE EDWARDS Presented By: ROBERT M. MCKENNA At rney neral Qs( ima. ARA J. N, WSBA #33003 Assistant A tomeys General GRDER 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL OE (NO. 07~2~0l620-8) oiympia, WA is (360) 586-1445 SF-01935 PRR-2011-00450 5 . - 1 X5 friusstoscsustr,its - "?33`52` EI EXQPEDITE . 1 QNO Hearing Set 1 Zim JUN EU FM I fiar?li?i Jing 103011 csuitt J. souiticis. at Tillie! 112008111 ff,-fi' l' A i Honorable Carol Murphy - 1 STATE OF WASHINGTON THURSTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT TIMOTHY c. HARPER, NO. 10-2-00750-1, Plaintiff, ORDER DISMIS SING WITH WASETNOTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant. This matter came before the Comt on an Order to Show. Cause on April 22, 2011. The Court orally ruled, 'dnding'that P1air1ti;tEt"s case should be dismissed as a matter of law. In reaching its decision, the Court considered _the Oral argument of 'Counsel for Defendant in addition to the following pleadings of the parties: i 1. Plaihtziff Motion for Order to Show Cause, with attached exhibits; 2. . Defendants' Response to Crder to Show Cause, with attached exhibits; and 3. I Plaintiff' Replyto Defendanfs Response to Order to Show Cause, The Com does' hereby find and CRDER: 1 1 1. c1aim_fa]ls with the Routing of Daines v. comfy, 111 wil. App. 342, 44' P.3d as he reviewed the records requested prior to tiling this lawsuit; 2. Plaintiff's claim is DISMISSED WITH and' 1 . . ORDER DISMISSING 1 GENERAL NO. 10-2-00750-1 Olympia, WA Qssotoiie - (360) 586-1445 SF-01936 PRR-2011-00450 3. The Judicial Assistant is instructed to send eopies of this Order to Plaintiff and toi Counsel for Defendant. 1 DATED this Wday of 2011. I HONORABLE CAROL HY A Superior Court Judge Submitted by: ROBERT M. MCKENNA Attorney General SARA DI ITTORIO, WSBA #33003 - Assistant ttorney General 1 ORDERDISMISSING _2 COMPLAINT PREILIDICE - PO BM0116 NO. 10-2-00750-1_ oiympia, . (360)585-1445 SF-01937 PRR-2011-00450 |21 Exrunifrn MAR a El No Hearin I Set i Wnvanb Hearing 1s?Set Li me: Q. Honorable STATE OE WASHINGTON THURSTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT DANIEL R. QUTNN, NO. U9-2-02836-O Plaintiff, STIPULATED ORDER OE nisMissAL (PROPOSED) VVASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant. . This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. Defendant has no objection to Plaintiff' motion. The Court does hereby tind and ORDER: 1. Plaintiff' Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice is and STIPULATED ORDER 01: 1 iirrolyuy GENERAL DTSMIS SAL (PROPOSED) if ,iims?on NO. O9-2-02836-O oiympia, WA 98504-0116 (360) 536-1445 SF-01938 PRR-2011-00450 . . . 2_ A sl 0 i ., DATED this my day of A so ,2o1o_ 32HONORABLE RICHARD D. HICKS Thurston County Superior Court Judge Presented By: Uk; Daniel R. Quinn, Plc1int;ffP1"o Se A greed as to form and content: ROBERT M. MCKENNA Attorney General A 5'tZ2*3 0 ARA J. OLS N, SBA #33003 Assistant Attorney General STIPULATED ORDER OF 2 DISMISSAL (PROPOSED) NO. 09-2-02836-0 A Ofmgig va( 3302-0116 (360) 586-1445 SF-01939 PRR-2011-00450 pans: -A - ,w gums wr 5 A i A 53215. 1 5 .Soir THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON oMs|oN ALLAN PARMELEE, No. eoeses-3-1 Appellant, ORDER GRANTING V. MOTION TO HAROLD CLARKE, PUBLISH Respondent. 5 Harold Clarke, respondent, filed a motion to publish the above-entitled opinion filed on November 24, 2008. The hearing panel has considered his motion and other pleadings filed in connection with the request to publish, and has reconsidered its prior determination. Now, therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that the written opinion filed November 24, 2008, shell be published and printed inthe Washington Appellate Reports. Done this tmdey of February, 2009. FOR THE COURT Judge 5333 6 rsresresvrr is 3 rsirrs as -sms PRR-2011-00450 Kita" Nw" Qin 25 26 gjgjai 'sa in Qs, 2 All 5.52 ~>>iilQ7/1 tiitf/#iff *ff 5 it i Zta; gfifiaf? STATE OF WASHINGTON SNOHOMISH COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ALLAN PARMELEE, NO. 06-2-09101-7 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING FOR SUMMARY v. HAROLD CLARKE et al., Defendants. This matter came before the Court on Defendant's] Motion for Summary Judgment pursuant to CR 56pon July 27, 2007. The Court orally ruled, granting the Motion for Summary Judgment, finding that Defendanfs did not violate RCW 42.56 the Public Reco1?ds Act, as a matter of law. ln reaching its decision to grant summary judgment, the Couit considered the oral argument of Counsel for Defendant and Counsel for Plaintiff in addition to the following pleadings ofthe parties: l. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment with accompanying declarations and exhibits; 2, Plaintiffs Response to Defendant's Motion for Summaiy Judgment with accompanying declarations and exhibits; and I Caption implies that there are more than one defendant. However, Plaintiff has only named one defendant in his Complaint. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 1 A Criminal Justice Division PO 40116 Olympiajlfg 9850442116 (360) 5864445 SF-01941 PRR-2011-00450 3, Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs Response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment with accompanying declarations and exhibits. The Court does hereby find and ORDER: 1. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. 2. The Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. 3. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to send uncertitled copies of this Order to Counsel for Plaintiff and for Defendant. 4 DATED this day of 2007. HONORABTQEC RONALD CASTLEBERRY Snohomish County Superior Court Judge Presented By: ROBERT M. MCKENNA Attorney General x4 1 SA J. OLS N, WSBA #33003 Assistant Atto ney General Agreed as to form: KAHRS LAW FIRM, P.S. 'r,(L41_ I AEL HRS, WSBA #27085 Attorney for Plaintiff ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS Morlon Fon SUMMARY JUDGMENT (NO. 06-2-09101-7) 2 GENERAL OF WASHINGTON Justice Division PO Box 40116 Olympia, WA 985040116 (360)586-1445 SF-01942 PRR-2011-00450 THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON ALLAN PARMELEE, NO, 82813-0 Petitioner, NO. 608368-I HAROLD CLARKE, Secretary ofthe Department of Corrections, V. Respondent. 3 Department II ofthe Court, composed of Chief Justice Alexander and Justices Madsen, Chambers, Fairhurst and Stephens, at its July 7, 2009, Motion Calendar, considered Whether review should he granted pursuant to RAP and unanimously agreed that the following order be enteredThat the Petrtron for Review is denred5-?17 1 I Qs: lm ft., DATED at Olympia, Washington this 0 day of uly, 2009. lb fl 6122 For the Court jf rg? iff* rain CHIEF STI 563/no SF-01943 PRR-2011-00450 ie; it 5 ti EE SUPERIOR CGURT 'i lU_|liSl 0H COUNTY, A1551 1 EXPEDTTE CLERK Date: April 17, 2009 3 Time: 11:00am smut 4 Judge: Richard Hicks 6 . STATE OF WASHINGTON 7 THURSTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 8 JEFFREY RQ MCKEE, 1 NO. 07 -2-02252-7 A 9 Plaintiff, MOTION POR 10 V. SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND 1 DENYIN 1 1 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT CROSS-MOTION FOR OF CORRECTIONS, et al., SUMMARY JUDGMENT 12 Defendants. 13 14 This matter came before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Summaiy 15 Judgment and Plaintiff' Cross~Motion for Summary Judgment on. Febiuaiy 27, 16 2009. The Court Totally ruled, granting Defendants' motion and denying 17 Plaintiffs cross-motion. In reaching its decision, the Couit considered the oral 18 argument of Plaintiff and Counsel for Defendants in addition to the following 19 pleadings ofthe parties: 20 l. Defendants' Motion for Suinmary Judgment, with attachments; sa 21 2. Plaintiff' Cross-Motion for Summaiy Judgment and with Response lb 22 to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, with attachments; DnFni\1n_aNTs= 1 GENERAL QE WASHINGTON Moir1oN Bon sin/n/IARY JUDGMENT AND - PLAiN'i'ii=F=s cnoss-Motion niympaa, WA 98504-0116 son suivnx/IARY JUDGMENT (Pno1>osnD) (3593 536-1445 No. ov-2-02252-7) SF-01944 PRR-2011-00450 3. Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Reply Memorandum, with attachments; and 4. Plaintiffs Reply to Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs Cross- Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court does hereby find and ORDER: l. Defendants did not violate the Public Records Act, RCW 42.56, et seq; . 2. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is 3. Plaintiff Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is and 4. This case is DISMISSED PREJUDICE. 5. The Clerl; of the Court is instructed to send uncertitled ies of this Order to the Plaintiff and counse forthe Defendants. A DATED this say of ,2009- Superio - it urt a gg A Presented By: ROBERT M. MCKENNA 4 Atto ey General SARA J. OLEON, #33003 Assistant At rneys General Counsel for Defendants QRQER 2 ATTORN EY GENERAL HINGTON MOTION Fon smmunar JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFFS Olympia, WA 98504-0116 Fon SUMMARY JUDGMENT (PROPOSED) S601 SSG-1445 No.o7-2-02252-71 SF-01945 PRR-2011-00450 IC VNIEHH PWLEU SUPERIOR COURT CCFUHTY, 'sift mum, Ciara Date: April l7, 2009 at Time: 11:00am 5 IJEPUTY Judge: Richard Hicks . STATE OF WASHINGTON TI-IURSTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JEFFREY R. MCKEE, NO. 07-2-02252-7 Plaintifil ORDER GRANTING - MOTION TO V. STRIKE TI-IE DECLARATION OF DENISE VAUGI-IAN, IN DEPARTMENT PART, AND DENYING OF CORRECTIONS, et alQ, MOTION, IN PART Defendants. (PROPOSED) This matter came before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion to Strike the Declaration of Denise Vaughan, attachedto Defendant?s Response to Plaintiffs Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, on February 27, 2009.' The basis of Plaintiffs motion was that the declaration contained hearsay statements allegedly made by Robert Turk. Defendants agreed to the striking of those portions of the declaration which contained Mr. Turl<'s hearsay statements, particularly Paragraphs 6 and 7 of Ms. Vaugl1an's declaration. The Court orally ruled, granting Plaintiffs motion, in part, with regard to the hearsay statements, and denying Plaintiff' s, motion in part, with regard to the remainder of the declaration. S9 1 GENERAL OF ON Corrections Division MOTION TO STRIKE THE DECLARATION Ol P10 1 16 PLAINTIFFS MOTION, IN PART (PROPOSED) (NO. 07-2-02252-7) SF-01946 PRR 2011 00450 - In reaching its decision, the Court considered the oral argument of Plaintiff and Counsel for Defendants inadclition to Plaintiffs Written motion to strike. i The Court does hereby find and ORDER: A l. Plaintiffs Motion to Strike the Declaration of Denise lt/aughan is GRANTED, IN PART, with regard to Paragraphs 6 and 7 which contain hearsay; and 2. Plaintiffs Motion to Strike the Declaration of Denise Vaughanis DENIED, IN PART, with regard to the remainder of Ms. Vaugl1an's declaration. 3. The Clerk ofthe cena is to send copies of this Order to the Plaintiff and counsel for the Defendants. A DATED this day of . 2009. A RIC Superior ur udge Presented By: ROBERT MCKENNA Attorney General sauna J. oi.: on, #33003 . Assistant Att rneys General Counsel for Defendants 2 2 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON - Corrections Division MOTION TO STRIKE THE DECLARATION Ol Bo; =;0l I6 I 16 on namsa vauenan, nr Paar, AND neutrino PLAn\1'r1rr's Morron, IN PART qaaorosan) (No. 07-2-02252-7) SF-01947 PRR-2011-00450 - THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH RICHARD BLICKU, A NO. Plaintiff; A FINAL ORDER -. V. - MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DEPARTMENT or CORRECTIONS, - Defendant. (PROPOSED) THIS MATTER coming before this Court on the motion of Plaintiff Richard Blick, and all parties having fully briefed this matter including the following pleadings: Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment with accompanying declaration and exhibits;? A Defendanfs Response to Plaintiff' Motion for Summary Judgment with accompanying declarations and exhibits; Plaintiff' Reply to Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Summaiy Judgment with accompanying declaration and exhibit; Plaintiffs Motion for Attorney's Fees; Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Attomey's Feesyand FINAL oaosa ON PLAINTIFPS 1 Kam.; Law Firm' p_S_ FPR SUMMARY IUDGMENT 5215 Ballard Ave. Nw, seams, WA 98107 Ph: (206) 264>>0643 Fax: (206) 237-8555 mkahrs@kahrslawfirm.com SF-01948 PRR-2011-00450 Pl&11'1lIlfFS Reply to Defendant's_ Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Attorney's Fees with accompanying declaration and exhibit. rr is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for summary roogmoot is PARTIALLY GRANTED on the following terms and conditions. That the Department of Corrections did provide the 'documents this Court held were wrongly Withheld to Plaintiff on January 6, 2011. That the penalty for the January 3, 2010 documents runs from January 11, 2010, to January 6, 2011. This is moral of368 days. Ar five dollars day, this is a penalty 1 That the penalty for the August 18, 2010 documents runs irom August 18, 2010, to January 6, 2011. This is a total of 139 days. At tive dollars a day, this is a penalty of $695.00 - The total penalty due Mr. Blick for Violations ofthe Public Records Act by the Department Of Corrections is Two Thousand Five Hundred Thirty- Five Dollars and No Cents That all parties agree the rates charged by counsel for Plaintiff is reasonable. - . 1 That a reasonable amount of attorneys fees, 0; Ll 0 0 exclusive of 1 fees accumulated aiier December 6, 2010, shall be awarded to counsel for Plaintiffl That the total amount of costs, $240.00 is reasonable and shall be awarded Plaintiff. FINAL ORDER ON 2 Kam., Law Firn1'P_S_ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 5215 Ballad Avo. Nw, sooulo, WA 98101 Ph: (206) 264-0643 Fax: (206)237-8555 _-wi 4 SF-01949 PRR-2011-00450 the amount of 2. to counse1forP1a1nt1ff %ay of 2011 Presented by KAHRS LAW FIRM Ps RS WSBA #27085 'Counsel for Plaintiff Approved as to form #f Thom 1533" WASHINGTON ATTORNEY GENERAIJS OFFICE Robert M. McKenna, Attorney General I 5 Q5 km 4 45 SARA J. I VITTORIO, WSBA #33003 Attorney for D`8f611d&11t 8. That tliose fees aocumulated after December 6, 2010, shall be awarded in sei' . EL . FINAL ORDER ON 3 Kahrs Law Firm' p_S_ MOTIDN FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 5215 Ballard Ave. NW, seame, WA 90107 Ph: (2065 264-0643 Pax; (206) 237-8555 mkahrs@kahrslawfirm.com SF-01950 PRR-2011-00450 gin"-:gif _e Fla? 5"ff_ff.; 4;-f wif 21-395; 5 jg; Ep.; _.fa 3 f_ if 2 ai? ?522 afwf 2 4 2 3 'Mi MW 52535 iisif-;? _ggi ggggi? ,xii gen. 7' - 4' 'aw SF-01951 PRR-2011-00450 ,nw ataThe Honorable Dave Edwards Hearing Date: July 13, 2009 ., - 1 - 5 3Hearing Time: Without oral argument G9 1 i 3 Hearing Location: cs- 2" iq;-STATE OF VVASHINGTON GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JEFFREY R. MCKEE, NO. Plaintiff ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREIUDICE V, i WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. Pursuant to this Couifs Order Granting Defendanfs Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to CR ll, entered February 27, 2009, Plaintiff was to pay sanctions to Defendant, in the amount of $328.48, and to this Court, in the amount of $750.00 Pursuant to that Order, if Plaintiff failed to pay the court-ordered sanctions by May 1, 2009, his case was to be dismissed with prejudice. This Court hereby finds the following: 1. Plaintiff has failed to pay court-ordered sanctions to Defendant in the amount of fS328.48; 2. Plaintiff has failed to pay court-ordered sanctions to the Court in the amount of $750.00; and 3. Plaintiff has violated the Cou1t's Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to CR ll. GRDER GP DISMISS AL ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON Corrections Division PRFJUDICE PO Bax /10116 03>>2>>00443-7 WA 98504-0116 (360) 586-1445 SF-01952 PRR-2011-00450 This Court does hereby ORDER: . Plaintiff' ease is DISMISSED WITH ll 1 If amount of pursuant to RCW and RCW 4.8-4080; and 2. Defendant, as the prevailing party, shall be awarded statutory Costs in the 3. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to send uncertitied copies of this Order to the Plaintiff and counsel tor the Defendants. DATED this of 2009. DAVID EDWARDS li?Vl3 EDWARDS Honorable Judge Presented By: ROBERT M. MCKENNA Atto ey Ge ra SA J. OL #33003 Assistant Att rneys General I I I 2 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF Corrections Division PREJUDICE PO Box 40116 08-2-C0443 Olympia, WA 98504-GI 36 (360) 586-1445 SF-01953 PRR-2011-00450 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I served a copy of the foregoing document on all parties or their counsel of record as follows: US Mail Postage Prepaid United Parcel Service, Next Day Air ABC/Legal Messenger State Campus Delivery Hand delivered Eyt TO: JEFFREY R. MCKEE, DOC #8 82819 AIRWAY HEIGHTS CORRECTIONS CENTER UNIT PO BOX 2049 AIRWAY HEIGHTS WA 9900l-2049 I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. EXECUTED this day ofJune, 2009 at Olympia, WA, 3;/15 KIMBERLY BOL ORDER 01: WITH 3 ATIORNEY or Corrections NO. O8-2-00443-7 olympia, WA 93504-ui is (360) 586-1445 SF-01954 PRR-2011-00450 aww" if 71 A A ?x?23 4 iw .E ff/'fi is Intl' tif? aa' gg The Honorable Dave Edwards *gg P-EQ 2-Z - 343 Hearing Date: 2/27/09 7 Giiearing Time: W/o oral argument A Hearing Location: STATE OF GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JEFFREY R. MCKEE, NO. 08-2-00443-7 Plaintifli BAR ORDER v. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, Jeffrey R. McKee is abusing the process of Grays Harbor County Superior Court. Mr. is engaging in "recreational litigation" for the purposes of his own entertainment and aniusenient. His litigation activities are hivolous and abusive and abuse the resources of this Court, impacting other litigants who have good-faith litigation pending. As a result of his frivolous, abusive litigation practices, the Court does hereby find and ORDER: 1. Jeffrey R. McKee is barred from filing any new actions in Grays Harbor County Superior Court Wi th out first seeking consent of the Court; 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to not accept for tiling any new action from Jeffrey R. McKee unless Mr. McKee first obtains an order from this Court permitting such action to be tiled; and A I 1 flair; /I/i .Q is N. .i we, fill 1 ATIURNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON Corrections Division No. os-2-00443-7 P0 Box 40116 Olympia, WA 98504-0116 (360) 586-1445 SF-01955 PRR-2011-00450 3. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to send unceltified copies of this Order to the Plaintiff and counsel for the Defendants. DATED this 2"7l}\ day of lDrt4Q [gl ,2oo9. DAVID EDWARDS DAVE EDWARDS Presented By: ROBERT M. MCKENNA Attorney General SARA J. OLS #33003 Assistant Atton eys General Honorable Judge BAR ORDER 2 AFIORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON Corrections Division NO BOX Olympia, WA 985040116 (360) 586-1445 SF-01956 PRR-2011-00450 'wuts -f 2; bi' EUR.ft2Lfi'--1 :wi The Honorable Dave Edwards '59 FQH fig() 33 Hearing Date: 2/27/09 Hearing Time: W/o oral argurnent i Hearing Location: of i 2 tw _gag if STATE- OF WASHINGTON GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JEFFREY R. MCKEE, NO. 08-2-00443-7 Plaintiff, ORDER DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SANCTTONS V. PURSUANT TO CR 11 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants. This matter caine before the Court on the Defendant's Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Civil Rule ll, on January 23, 2009. The Court orally ruled, granting Defendant's motion. In reaching its decision, the Court considered the oral argument of Plaintiff and Counsel for Defendant in addition to Defendant's Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Civil Rule ll. Plaintiff did not file a response to Defendant's Motion. The Court does hereby find and ORDER: l. Plaintiff" Motion to Disqualiiy Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General Under RCW 2.-44.020 was coinpleteiy ineritless, fiivolous, and filed forthe purpose of harassing the opposing parties in this litigation; 2. Defendant's Motion for Sanctions Pursuant to Civil Rule ll is GRANTED. 3. Piaintiffis ordered to pay to Defendant costs and attorney fees totaling $328.>>48; 4. Plaintiff is furthered ordered to pay to punitive sanctions to Grays Harbor County Superior Court totaling $750.00, payable Within 10 if if i pier $1395 'ws- *Egg 'a ?1 Wi" it .2 stir - GRANTING 1 MOTION Fon SANCTIONS NO. 08-2-004434 oiympia, WA 98504-0116 (360) 5851445 PRR-2011-00450 The Court FURTHER ORDERS that Plaintiff is barred nom any further proceedings under this cause number, including discovery, motion practice, and tiling any documents with the Court, until the sanctions are paid in bull. If the sanctions are not paid in full by May l, 2009, Plaintiff' case will be dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to send uncertitied copies of this Order to the Plaintiff and counsel forthe Defendant. -FC . DATED this day of ,2co9. DAVID EDWARDS DAVE EDWARDS Honorable Judge Presented By: ROBERT M. MCKENNA Atto General >jud ginent interest, but that such claims are nonetheless being released by Plaintiti 5 IN CONSIDERATION of the release set forth above, the parties agree to the following settlement: The State of Washington will fund the fuhire periodic payments set forth below (in paragraph 5 for a total present value of Seven Hundred Filiy Thousand and no/100 Dollars and the immediate lump sum of Four Million Two Hundred Fifty' Thousand and no/l 00 Dollars for a total settlement of Five Million and no/100 onine Grayson Associates, or its insurer on Grayson's behalf; shall pay Five Hundred Thousarid and no/100 Dollars Brad Sirnl-fins, or his insurer(s) on Siml>fAssignorin1;mediately preceding the assignment. Upon msi ent, Assignee or its desi an hall mail future payments directly to Payee. Upon making such "quali assignments", Assignor - be re JR from all obligations to make the Periodic Payments and only Assignees shall be obligated 'to make the Periodic Payments. Discharge ofthe liability to make any Periodic Payment shall be determined by the payment mode in which the payment is made. If the payment mode is by check sent by the United States mail,-discharge occurs upon the mailing of a valid check, in the amount of such payment, to Payees addresses as shown in Assignees' records. If any Payee reports a lost check, a replacement check will be issued according to current check re-issue procedures. lf the payment rnode is by electronic funds transfer, discharge occurs upon the electronic transferring of funds, in the amount of such payment, into Payee's bank account as shown in Assignees' records. If any other payment mode is employed, discharge occurs upontraesmitting funds, in the amount of such payment, as appropriate for that payment mode to Payee's address or account as shown in Assignees' Releme Agreement 3 of 10 SF-01984 l?fZ>> gg- PRR-2011-00450 4 records; Whatever mode ofpaymeut is usedfor any Periodic Payment, Assignees shall make payment on or before the due date of such payment. 4 53 FUNDING OF Pacific Life Sa Annuity Services, Inc. ("Assignee") may fund the Periodic Payments in the above paragraph 5.l(a) by purchasing a "qualiied asset", within the meaning of Section l30(d) ofthe Code, in the form of an annuity policy hom Pacific Life and Annuity Company ("Annaity lssuer"). All right of ownership and control of such annuity policy shall be vested in Assignee, but Assignee may have Annuity Issuer make payments directly to'Payee for Assignce's convenience. Prudential Assigned Settlement Services Corporation may fund _the Periodic Payments in the above paragraph 5.1(b} by purchasing a "qualified handing asset", within the meaning of Section l30(d) of the Code, in the form of an annuity policy hom Prudential Insurance _Company of America ("A.nnuity Issuer"). All tight of ownership and control of such annuity policy shall be vested in Assignee, but Assignee may have Annuity Issuer make payments directly to Payee for convenience. 5 .4 PAYMENTS AFTER DEATH OF PLAINTIFF: Any payments to be made after the death of Plaintilfpursuaut to the terms of this Release and Settlernent Agreement shall be made to the Shayne Abegg Special Needs Trust, as long as the trust is in eEect. In the event the trust is not in effect, Plaintiff ay submit a change of hcnehciary, in writing, to assignee. No such designatior; nor an evocalion thereof, shall be etfective unless it is in writing and delivered to Assignee. The 1 ignation must be in a form acceptable to 1 .Q -sq' 'tam 5.5? LMITATIONS on 1uscr1>rsN'rs= Noneofthe fsaiprane of the paymene accelerate or defer said future payments tn any time or vary in any respect the PHYUJEHYSQ . b. receive the present discounted value of payments; o. have any control of the investments or funds from which payments' are made; d. have any 'right to increase or decrease as payments; change or modify the manner, :node or method of meeting any payments or discharging any obligations set forth in this agreement; have the power to sell, mortgage, encurnber, or anticipate the payments, or any part thereot; by assignment or otherwise. 3. c. if Further, Plaintiff is disabled from and may not, directly or indirectly, by assignment or otherwise, sell, mortgage, cucumber, or anticipate any payment, or part of any payment, to be made under this Release and Settlement Ageement Additionally, Plaintifl" may not accelerate, defer, increase, or decrease any payment, or part of any payment. Any agreement or transaction made by Plaintiff in violation of any of these limitations respecting payments is void. 5.6. Fuss Ann Caracas; it is as-that agreed ara there writ he no fees or charges made to recipients by Defendants or any of their employees or agents (including, Release Agreement 1 sasoons 4 of I0 SF-01985 PRR-2011 'E-if -00450 without limitation, the issuer or owner ofthe annuity policies described herein), for the purchase or administration ofthe annuity or payments described herein. BIOLOGICAL PARENTS: lt is further understood and agreed the Shayne Abegg's biological paren ts, Danny Abegg and Kristine Addington, shall not at anytime acquire, utilize, obtain or receive any benefits from or distribution of the proceeds of this settlement, including any distribution by operation of law if Shayne predeceases either of 6. them. ASSURANCES OF AUTHORITY: To procure payment ofthe aforementioned sums, the undersigned does hereby declare that they are competent and of the age of majority, that no representations about the nature and extent of said damages, loss or injury made by any attorney or agent of any party hereby released, nor any representations regarding the nature and extent of the legal liability _or rinancial responsibi1ity`ot` any of the parties hereby - released have induced Plaintiff to make this settlement; that in determining said sum, there has been taken into consideration not only the ascertained damages and losses, but also the fact that consequences not now ascertained may result from said occurrence, casualty or event as hereinhefore referred to. i 7. SETTLEMENT FUNDS Plaintiff shall pay any minor settlement' guardian ad litem fees and costs incurred to obtain settlement approval by the Court out of the settlement funds described in paragraph 5 of this Agreement All costs and attorneys fees incurred by Plaintiff in the prosecution ofthe Shayne Abegg Lawsuit shall be paid out ofthe settlement iimds described in paragraph 5 of this Agreement. It is expressly understood that the net - ed t` costs, and Court- _settlement proceeds (after payment of Court approv attorneys ees, approved guardianship expenses) are intended to be and shall be utilized solely for the S. acquired, utilized and/or obtained by the biological parents of Shayne Abegg, including any possible distribution to them as Shayne's heirs at law it' Shayne Abegg should predecease either biological parent. COURT APPROVAL: lt is expressly understood by all Parties that this Agreement is contingent upon approval by the court on behalf of minor Plaintiff Shayne Ahegg. No part of . this Agreement shall be binding or effective unless or' until the' Court approves execution of P, this Agreement by Jeanne Marie Clavere as the Court-appointed guardian of minor Shayne 8. Abegg. A Parkes Q. Uporrpalyment of the settlement ounts as described in 9 nk' paragraph 5 of this Agrecrnentinto the Court fdn' "gh fthe "mf" payments and upon. co oval of this agreej to take the necessary action through attorneys to dismiss with prejudice, and without .award of attorneys' fees or costs, all claims against each Defendant in the Shayne Abegg Lawsuit who complies with its obligations under this Agreement ov Ill' IntlZ0;. 1 HA Releaseri Sof 10 gf - th cm. SF-01986 PRR-2011-00450 10. ACIGJOWIIEDGMENT OF OBLIGATIONS: Plaintiff hereby acknowledges receipt of a copy of this release before signing SELI116. It is understood that the provisions of this Release and Settlement Agreement are contractual and me not merely recitats and that the undersigned has read the foregoing Release arid Settlement Agrernent, understands it and signs same as their voluntary act and deed. 11. GENERAL PROVISIONS: . a. Agreement shall be governed by th laws of the State of Washington. Plaintiff warrants that neither he, nor any person acting on his behalf, has assigned any rights against the Defendants with respect to the matters that are the subject of this Agreement. e. Captions in this agreement are for convenience only and shall not he given any independent meaning. All parties have reviewed this and have received the advice of counsel d. with respect to the terms of the Agreement and its effect. The terms of this Agreement shalt be construed' in an even-handed nianner to carry ent the mutual intent of the Parties, and shall not he construed in favor cf or against any party as the dratter. e. Each party bear its own attorneys fees and costs. 1 JEANNE MARIE Ctavnas as free GUARDIAN- ,en-L-mane AA- OF MINOR PLAINTIFF SHAYNE ABEGG, AGREES AS (1) I HAVE COMPLETELY READ THIS RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEIVIENT AND FULLY UNDERSTAND AND VOLUNTARILY ACCEPT IT AS FQUTHORIZED BY THE COURT IN ITS ORDER APEROVING MLNOR SETTLEMENT, THE PURPOSE OE RESOLUTION AND SETTLEMENT OF ANY AND ALL -. -DIS Presents:-nve ANY CLAIMS our on on ns any wav fran ;tN.1onn1s on aeovn (2) on assists or rvnison snavns asses, I rear ran FUTURE connss os nsrunv on ornsn namacss Cannot BE Release Agreement 4419591 1 sasnuna 6 of I SF-01987 PRR-2011 00450 PREDICTED WITH (3) ON BEHALF OF MTNOH SHAYNE AQBEGG, AS BY THE COURT, 1 ASSUME THE RISK THAT THE INJURIES OR UEUVTAGES ELSE WQRSEN IN THE FUTURE THAT NEW LNJUEIES on UAMAGES THAT ARE NOT KNOWN MAY DEVELOP. (4) ON BEHALF OF MINOR SHAYNE AS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT, 1 ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE INFORMATION REGARDING THE CLAIMS MADE is SUFFICIENT T0 ENTER INTO THIS FINAL RELEASE AGREEMENT. DATED this day of 2009. JEANNE MARIE CLAVERE, Court Appointed Guardian H-Haan for Shayne ,Stagg and Com Appointed Settlement Guardian ad-Litm-for Shayne ME STATE OF WASHINGTOIE COUNTY QF I., the undersigned, a notary public in and for the State of Washington, hereby certify that on this day of 2009, personally appeared before me .TEANTNE MARIE CLAVERE, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument as guardian ad-Hdseen for Shayne Abegg and Settlement guardian ad-liiarr for Shayne Abegg, and acknowledged that she Signed and sealed the same as her free and voluntary act and deed, for the Usm and purposes therein mentioned- Given under my hand and official day and year ast written., Name: Notary Public in and for the State of residing &f My Cornnlission Expires: Release Agreement 4oas9vfs?snonS 7 of 10 SF-01988 PRR-2011-00450 AGREED TO THIS OF MAY 2009. AGREED T0 THIS OF MAY 2009, ROBERTIM. MCIQENNA Attomey General PAMELA ANDERSON, Ween Assistant Attorney General ep mmiofsoeiatmdneaim Services' STATE ot-= WASHINGTON SS COUNTY oi? Cn the clay aboi/e written personally appeared before me as the and authoiized agent ofthe Departrnent of Social and Health Services, lmown to me to be the person described herein and who executed the within and foregoing iusixument, and acknowledged that lie si gied the same as his fre and voluntary act and deed, for the uses end purposes therein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this day of May 2009 Notary Public in and for the State ot`Wasl1ington Residing at . My commission expires: Release Agreement 4085971 8 of l0 SF-01989 PRR-2011-00450 AGREED T0 THIS DAY OF MAY 2009. GRAYSON ASSOCIATES, INC. BY: Samuel L. Grayson., President STATE OF WASHINGTON ss COUNTY OF On the day above written personaliy appeared before me SAJVIUEL L. GRAYSON as the President and authorized agent of Grayson Associates, Inc., known to me to be the person described herein and who executed the within and foregoing instrurnent, and acknowledged that he sigied the same as his &ee and voluntary act and deed, forthe uses and purposes therein mention ed. . - GIVEN under my hand and seal this dai ofMsy 2009 Printed Name: Notary Public in and for die State of Washington A . Residing at My commission expires: Release - 9 of 10 SF-01990 PRR-2011-00450 The Honorable Thomas Wynne Department 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF IN AND FOR SNOHOMISH COUNTY- In re the Guardianship of: SHAYND Aenoo, NO. os-2-03153-1 A Mmm. 0 AND ORDER AMENDING SETTLEMENT [Clerk's Action Required] STIPULATION The Parties, by and through counsel, hereby stipulate to the following clarification to the Grder Approving Settlement, which was entered on May 18, 2009. 1. The total settlement amount is $6,000,000 That does not change. 2. However, the total amount received by the Clerk ofthe Court will be $5,250,000 ($500,000 from Defendant Simkins; $500,000 from Defendant Grayson; and $4,250,000 from Defendant DSHS). 3. In addition to me $4,250,000 paid i11m`?11? registry by DSHS, it has directly purchased annuities, for the benefit of _Shayne Abegg, in the total amount of $750,000. STIPULATION AND 012.0511 AMENDNG - 1 . .mom Nev; em - e..m.wmw. rr-uirnouspoai 63-7172 - rAcs|u.|o.e (2043 SF-01991 PRR-2011-00450 - - 4. Upon receipt: of$5,250,000, fha shall distribute 1116 funds as follows: a. to Hfigons Borman Sobel Shapiro LLP (as indlanred inthe May 18, 2009 order, at -fn; b. 512,000 to Barbara Isenhour (as indicated in 'Ehe May 13, 2009 ordcr, utp.4); Q, $352,166.19 to Icanoc Glavcro (sm indicated in tlio May 12,2009 Graaf, arp. and to Tho Shayne Abogg Sp?bitil Needs Tfruut Wells Fargo awk (M maiumd in the May ls, zoos Omar. ?rpp. . d. . goJ'\5" DATED day ofluos, 2009. 1 . me OBOLS OLLP Atto fo1' Shayne Davi . A oody, WSBA 'fair ma?" OFFICE OF ATT RAL Attorneys For . dant SETS uh 4 me epson? WSBA 0.21335 ward B. 5406 QTIPULATIOIN AND ORDER - 1 -3 I lu' ooaonnm mmv\ muurunuwmsuaunnu. aouunwwnunm umm - rmlihuwum -. SF-01992 PRR-2011-00450 FORSBERGAZUMLAUF Atforneys for Defendant Mar C. Dean, WSBANG. 12897 ME if HOFS A110 3 tGra?/son Associates M20 SBANQ 2010 In 1 WSBANQ 40019 ORDER The total settlement amount of $6 000 000 shell remam the same However the total funds the Clerk of This Court shell be $5,250,000 beeause Defendant DSHS has paad $750,000 direotly to purchase two annuities for the benefit of Shayne Abegg Based upon the stipulsmon of the parties it ms hereby ordered that the Moy 18, 2009 Order Approving Settlement is hereby amended and the Clerk ofthe Court is directed to release funds in the amount of $5,250,000 as indicated above DATED this dayofJ'une,2009 .Pres . ANSOB e' IROLLP the sforlf intiff begg 0 STIPULATI ER t` INGSETTLEMBNT 3 IIAGEPQS GERMAN OBDI, SHKPIRO JBQINMALDN UITERYN !l J0l666Vl fl1447452.493-7211 M-CSIMIIE SF-01993 PRR-2011-00450 OFFICE OF THE ATTOICNBY GENERAL Attomaya for Defendant DSI-EE Kg By 5-H .Puma WBBA No. 1835 - Edward S. WSBA No. 5405 UMLAUF - Attorneys for Defendant Simkins Mark C. D?an, WSBA No. 12897 MBRRI asm ?'No 2010 I .Mu wma 5 Aft0 if Assooiates - STIPULATION AND ORDER AMENDING - 4 umn-al :cassava BE IMN mn - sermons pos) enum SF-01994 PRR-2011-00450 - - . . -410 213 14: -.155 '17 is .19 T220 21 -22 23 .24 '425 ,26 ii RGEQEWED Nov 2 EALTH SERVICES DIV 2 STATE OF WASHINGTON sNonoMIsH COUNTY COURT Asses, Plaintiff; - Vi STATE OF VVASHINGTON, DSHS, Defendant N0.08-2-03753-1 ORDER os DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE A [Glerk's Action Requested] i This matter =can1e before the -Court _on the Defendar1t's'Motion to Dismiss, and the - courtehaving heard argument of counsel and being fully advised in the premises, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendanfs Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and iheeabeove-eapfionea case is DISMISSED WITH PREIUDICE. 2 mis; zoo 2 - Al# A Sno omish eunty I er1 urtIudge Presented by: A RGBERT M. MCKENNA Attorney General f' CARRIE L. BASHA BA #20253 Senior Counsel, Assistant Attorney General Attorney for -Defendant' GENERAL OF WASHINGTON ORDER OF DISMISSAL PREJUDICE 1 A 7141 Cleanmwr Dr SW PO Box 40124 98504 0124 I I Oiyn1pia,WA - A PRR-2011-00450 277; 'piglfig ij 3 'fi iw STATE OF WASHINGTON SNOHOMISH COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT SHAYNE ABEGG, NO. 08-2-03753-1 Plaintiff; ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE V. A [C1erkis Action Requested] STATE OF WASHINGTON, DSHS, Defendant. This matter came before the Court on the Defendanfs Motion to Dismiss, and the coiur having heard argument of counsel and being fully advised in the premises. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendanfs Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and me above-Captioned case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. DATED this 'day of.Segt&fer, zoo 9 el# .af Sno omish ounty err urt Judge Presented by: ROBERT M. MCKENNA Attomey General I I 5 I 1 CARRIE L. BASHAW, BA #20253 Senior Counsel, Assistant Attorney General Attorney for Defendant ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON - ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREIUDICE 1 Wu Cleanwater Dr SW PO Box 40124 Olymp` WA 98504-0[24 4 omommi SF-01996 PRR-2011-00450 1 Approved as to form; 2 HAGENS BERMAN soBoL SHAPIRO LLP 3 Attorney for Plaintiff 4 - 1 1 an if $'0ff 5 DAVID P. DY, BA No. 2221 6 Attorney for Plaintiff ATTORNEY GENERAL: OF WASHINGTON ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 2 7 141 Cleanwater .Olympia, WA 98504-0l24 . (360) 5116-6565 - - SF-01 997 PRR-2011-00450 as A I EUR CUQRT I rrdiigigs new 5| A No hearing set ZEN 'li mi U.: 3 Hearin is set: I J. ti Jud e/Cale11dar:Paula Casey A STATE OF VVASHINGTON THURSTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT A LINDA BRYAN T, a manied person, NO. 10-2-02498-8 - Plaintifi ORDER GRANTIN TI-IEE V. DEPARTIVIENT OF SOCIAL AND - - HEALTH MOTION FOR SUSAN DREYFUS, Secretary and the SUMMARY JUDGMENT DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, land the STATE - . OF WASHINGTON, A D_efendants. . THIS MATTER having oonle hefore the Court on Defendant, State of Washington, Department of Social and Health Services' (Depertmentj Motion for Suininary Judgment and the Court having considered the following documents in addition to the motion: 'n l. 'To Declaration of Kenna Davies in Support of the Depaitmenfs Motion for Sunaniary Judgment and the exhibits attached thereto. - 2. The Declaration of Justin D. Farmer in Suppoit ofthe Depa1'tment's Motion for Summary Judgment and the exhibits attached theretos - 3 QRDER GRAETHQG THE 1 GENERAL OF WASETNSTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCML Ann SW MOTION OR WA 93504-0124 SUMMARY JUDGMENT I wo) 5866555 - SF-01998 PRR-2011-00450 5 5. The oral argtunent ofthe parties.. And the Court having reviewed the records and files herein; md being fully advised, NOW, THE COURT FINDS: . - 1. The Department timely responded to Ms. Bryant's request pursuant to RCW 42.56.52o. . 1 A 2. Ms. Bryant possessed all of the documents at issue in this matter 37 days prior to ning this 1awSu1t_>> - - 3. Ms. Bryant failed to respond to, and thereforeprovided insuffioient evidence to - overcome, the Depa.rt1nent's Motion for Summary Judgment. 4. Surnnxary Judgment is a proper method to prosecute PRA 5 based on the above endings, rr is ADJUDGED, AND DECREBD that Plaint@s Motion for Surnniaiy Judgment to Dismiss Ms. Bryant's action is GRANTED. - Donn IN oounr this day of EQQ ,zotfl a A i "Vi" ORABLE PAULA Presented by: ROBERT M. MCKENNA Attorney General STIN D. FARMER, WS #41697 -Assistant Attorney Ge al Attorneys for De an ent Approved as to Form: . WM. MICHAEL SBA #7829 Attorney for Plaintiff ORDER 'ppm ATIORNEY GEITERAL o1= WQSHINGTON DEPARTMENT or soorar. Ano A . HEALTH MOTION FOR Olympia, WA 93504-0124 SUMMARY (3609 5866565 SF-01999 PRR-2011-00450 AGREEMENT THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (hereinafter, "Agreement") is entered into and effective as ofthe date of mutual execution hereof; by and among IUDITH A. CALHOUN, (hereinafter "Ms Calhoun") and the STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH snnvicus, (hereinafter "Depanmenr?). 4 RE CI ALS WHEREAS, on or about June 26, 2009, Ms. Calhoun commenced a lawsuit under the Public Records Act (42.56 RCW) under Pierce County Cause No. 09-2-10688-1, asserting that the Department did not comply with the Public Records Act and disclose all records requested on March 24, 2008. WHEREAS, the Department represents it has conducted a Search in good faith using methods reasonably expected to retrieve all documents that were responsive to the Public Records Request of Ms. Calhoun, which were the subject of the claim in the above-entitled matter, WHEREAS, Ms. Calhoun did not receive all documents responsive to her March 24, 2008 request. WHEREAS, in light of the risks, uncertainties, and expenses associated with litigation, the Department and Ms. Calhotm (hereinafter collectively, "Parties'?) have elected to resolve and settle the various claims as set forth inthe subject complaint, without admitting liability therefor, and to dismiss the same with prejudice on the following terms and conditions: SETTLEMENT ERBIS AND CONDITIONS NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set forth below and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree: 1 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Page of 5 SF-02000 PRR-2011 00450 l. That as full accord, satisfaction, and t`mal settlement of all disputed legal and/or equitable claims, causes of action, and/or liability that may have arisen or may hereafter arise as such claims, causes of action and/or liability- may in any way be related to the alleged wrongdoing for which Ms. Calhoun alleges the State of Washington and its agencies are liable and which are included in the subject matter ofthe lawsuit described above,the Department shall pay to Ms. Calhoun the principal sum of Fourteen Thousand and 00/100 Dollars (3 Payment shall be made to the order of her attorney, Thomas F. Klein, in trust forthe benefit of Ms. Calhoun. 2. In consideration for the payment described in paragraph l, Ms. Calhoun agrees to voluntarily dismiss with prejudice all asserted claims in her lawsuit against the Department under Pierce County Superior Court Cause No. 09-2-l0688-l. Upon mutual execution of this Agreement, the Department shall cancel the summary judgment hearing scheduled for June 4, 2010, in Pierce County Superior Court under Cause No. 09-2-l0688-l. Upon delivery and receipt of the payment identitied in paragraph hereinabove, the Parties, by and through their attorneys, shall sign and tile with the court a stipulation and agreed order of dismissal with prejudice. 3. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, Ms. Calhoun, for herself and each of her respective heirs, successors, assigns, officers, agents, attorneys, or representatives does hereby mutually, irrevocably and unconditionally releases, acquits, and forever discharges the Department and each of its respective representatives, administrators, successors, assigns, principals, agents, and employees from any and all legal claims, liabilities, obligations, promises, agreements, damages, causes of action, suits, demands, costs, losses, debts and expenses (including attorney fees) of any nature whatsoever, which Ms. Calhoun now has or may hereinafter claim to have against the Department by reason of any matter, act, omission, cause or event that has occurred prior to this date, which is related to her request for copies of records and the claims asserted in this lawsuit against the Department under Pierce County Superior Court AGREEMENT Page 2 of 5 SF-02001 PRR-2011 00450 Cause No. 09-2-1 0688-1. SETTLEIVENT AGREEMENT Page 3 of 5 SF-02002 PRR-2011-00450 4. The undersigned hereby declares that the terms of this Agreement have been completely read and are fully understood and voluntarily accepted, for the purpose of making a full and Enal compromise, adjustment, and settlement of any and all claims, disputed or otherwise, Without any admissions of liability by the Parties herein released. The Parties represent and acknowledge that in executing this Agreement, they do not rely and have not relied upon any representation or statement made by the other party or by the other parties' attorneys not contained herein concerning the subject matter, basis, or effect of this Agreement. Each party acknowledges that they have been given the opportunity to consult with and obtain the advice of duly licensed attorneys, and that each or" them has executed this Agreement ireely and voluntarily and without fraud, duress or undue influence. i 5. This Agreement is made and entered into inthe State of Washington and shall in all respects be interpreted and enforced and governed under Washington law. This release and the Stipulation and Order of Dismissal, to be filed with the court upon execution of this Agreement, contain the entire agreement of the parties, The language of all parts of this Agreement shall in all cases be construed as a Whole, according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any ofthe Parties. 6. This Agreement includes any attorney fees, costs and any adverse tax consequences to Ms. Calhoun. . 7. in the event that either party hereto shall commence an action to enforce any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action shall recover 'from the non~prevailing party all costs and disbursements incurred by such prevailing party, including reasonable attorney's fees. 8. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed as an original, and all of which taken together shall constitute a single instrument, Signatures SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Page 4 of 5 SF-02003 PRR-2011 00450 transmitted by facsimile shall be accepted as binding absent reasonable question as to the _authenticity ofthe same. A., Calhoun Date Signed Richard Kellogg, Director _Date Signed Integrated Health Services Department of Social and Health Services 1 SETTLEMENT Page 5 of5t .. SF-02004 PRR-2011-00450 trzuasmitfed by facsimile shall be accepted as binding absent reasonable question as to the azithenticity of the same. rw ww Judith A, Calhoun Date Signed 6 -I -J Richard Kell g, or Date Signed Integrated Health Services A Department of Social and Health Services AGREEMENT Page 5 of5 SF-02005 PRR-2011-00450 EJ EXPEDITE No I-Iearing Set 5 Hearing Data. tl-5 if Qt fi Time: 5 HJ 5 Honorable Carol Murphy THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF THURSTON LARRY CERVANTES, a married person, NO, 10,2-003 87-5 Plalmlfi AND o1u>ER TO ENTER SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE SUSAN DREYFUS, Secretary, and the OF SOCIAL AND CLERK ACTION REQUIRED HEALTH SERVICES, and the STATE OF WASHINGTON, Defendants. THIS MATTER having come on regularly before the undersigned Judge of the above~entitled court; Plaintiff, Larry Cervantes, being represented by bis attorney, Wm. Michael Hanbey; Defendant, State of Washington, Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), being represented byattorneys Robert M. McKenna, Attorney General, and Justin D. Farmer, Assistant Attorney General, and the Plaintiff having accepted the Defendantfs Offer of Judgment pursuant to ca 68, and the Court having entered a Stipluated Judgment and Order to Disbwse Funds on July 22, 201 0, the parties now stipulate and agree to an order as follows: I. STIPULATION 1. DSI-IS inadvertently deposited the judgment amount of $7,000.00 into the personal bank account of Judgment Creditor, Larry Cervantes, on or about July 29, 2010, instead of depositing the payment with the registry of the court. STTPULATION AND oaneza 'ro ENTER 1 SATISFACTION or JUDGMENT AND 7 CLOSE CASE olympia, WA 98504-0124 (360) 586>>6565 SF-02006 PRR-2011-00450 . 2. Larry Cervantes subsequently tendered a check in the amount of $7,000.00 to his attorney, Wm. Michael Hanbey. Mr. Hanbey now holds the full judgment amount of $7,000.00 in a client trust account. 3. The Judgment entered in this matter on July 22, 2010, has been fully paid to Judgment Creditor, Larry Cervantes, and Judgment Creditor's Attorney, Wm. Michael Hanbey, by Judgment Debtor, Department of Social and Health Services. DATED this day of August, 2010 DATED this SAA day ofAug11st, 2010 A ROBERT M. MCRENNA A Attorney General A WM. MIQCI-LAEL BE WSBA #7829 JO . LARK, WS #28537 Attorney for Plaint STIN D. FA WSBA #41697 Assistant Atto General Attorneys for efendant II. ORDER The above stipulation is hereby adopted as an order of this Court, and it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Court Clerk is directed to enter satisfaction of the judgment against DSHS and take all necessary steps to close this matter, including the removal of all prior case scheduling orders. DATED this 7 day of 1, 2010. CAROL MURPHY JUDGE CAROL MURPHY 0 STIPQATION AND ORDER TO ENTER 2 OFDWQEIMIGTUN SATISFACTION or JUDGIVLENT AND 71 CLOSE CASE Olympia, WA 98504-0124 (360) S86-6565 SF-02007 PRR-2011-00450 Presented by: ROBERT M. MCKENNA Attorney General I D. CLARK, BA #28537 JUSTIN D. WSBA #41697 Assistant Ano eys General Attorneys for Defendant . i Wm. Michael Hanbey, #7829 Attorney for Plainuff STIPULATIONAND ORDER TO ENTER 3 SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT AND 4 CLOSE CASE Olympia, WA 98504-0124 (360) 5354565 SF-02008 PRR-2011-00450 in is at at No Hearing se t" ata et El Hearing is Set "Ti - Date! Q3 - Tlmef JUL aa zen H?"?"ab1e Carol A IN THE SUPERTOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF THURSTON LARRY CERVANTES, a married person, NO, P1ainfiff>> STIPULATED JUDGMENT AND ORDER TO DISBURSE FUNDS SUSAN DREYFUS, Secretmy, and the CLERK ACT IUN REQUIRED DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, andthe STATE OF WASHINGTON, Defendants. I A Judglnent Summary (RCW 4.64.030) Judgent Creditor: 'Larry Cervantes Judment Creditors Attorney: Wm. Michael Hanbey, WSBA #7829 Judgment Debtor: State of Washington, Department of Social and Health Services Total Judgngent Amount: $7,000.00 Pre-Judggent Interest: $0.00 Post-Judgment Interest: $0.00 A - Taxable Costs and Attorneys' Fees: Included in Total Judgment Amount THIS MATTER having 'come on regularly before the undersigned Judge cf the above-entitled court; Plaintiff, Larry Cervantes, being represented by his attorney, Wm. Michael Hanbey; Defendant, State of Washington, Department of Social and Health Services (DSI-IS), being represented by attorneys Robert M. McKenna, Attorney General, Justin D. Farmer, and John D. Clark, Assistant Attorneys General, and-the 'Plaintiff having STIPULATED JUDGMENT AND onuaa 1 'ro rnsenasa FUNDS onmpia, WA 98504-0124 (360) 586-6565 SF-02009 4 PRR-2011-00450 excepted the Defendant's Gffer of Judgment pursuant to CR 68, settle and cornprornise this action as follows: 1. Judgnientin the amount of $7,000.00 shall be taken against Defendant DSHS to resolve all claims arising out of Thurston County Superior Court Case No. 10-2-00387-5 that was brought against DSI-IS, Secretary Susand Dreyfus, and the State of Washington. 2. Defendant DSHS shall deposit into the registry of the Thurston County Superior Court seven-thousand on or before August 6, 2010. 3. Upon receipt of $7,000.00, the Court Clerk shall enter satisfaction of the judgment against DSHS. 4. Upon presentation of identification, the Thurston County Superior Court Clerk is directed to release the funds to Plaintift"s counsel, Wm. Michael Hanlaey. 5. The Court Clerk shall take all necessary steps to close this matter, including the removal of all prior case scheduling orders. - DATED this ofiury, 2010 Carrot MURPHY JUDGE onaor 1 Presented by: Rosnnr M. MCKENNA Attorney General to1Jn<1'D. CLARK, #28537 JUSTIN D. PQ WSDA #41697 Assistant Att ey General Attorneys for Defendant I 9 4 Wm. Michael WSBA #7829 Attorney for Pi STIPULATED JUDGMENTAND onuna 2 AWORNHY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 7141 Ct SW TO DISBURSE FUNDS - WA 9850441124 (sec) SF-02010 PRR-2011-00450 _nf-3 OW lg- $24. 5-an ft zum aut? ?fflii 4, - a 7' IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON TN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF THURSTON LARRY CERVANTBS, a married No. to-aoossv-5 person, OFFER OF HIDGMENT Plaintiff, v. SUSAN DREYFUS, Secretary, and the DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, andthe STATE OF WASHINGTON, Defendants. TO: LARRY CERVANTES, Plaintiff AND TO: MICHAEL HANBEY, Attorney for Plai_ntift` Under Civil Rule 68, Defendants hereby offer to allow you, Larry Cervantes, to take judgment against the Depattment of Social and Health Sefvices, which judgment shall be in the amount of seven thousand dollars which shall include all penalties, attorney fees, and other awardable costs accrued in this case by Plaintiff to the date of this Offer. This Offer is extended to settle and fully and fmally resolve all legal and equitable relief sought by you in this case. This Offer is made for the purposes of Civil Rule 68, and may not be construed as a waiver of any defenses or objections, an admission that Defendant is liable to you, or that you have been irdured or damaged as a result of any action or inaction on the part ofthe Defendant. This Ofler is made in an attempt to allow the parties to compromise QFFER QP JUDGIVIENT 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 73 41 Cleanwater Dr SW PO Box 401% A Olympia, WA 9S504>>0l24 (360) 53645565 SF-02011 PRR-2011-00450 their respective- litigation positions, to eliminate the added of fmthor Litigation, and to avoid the risks and expenses of further litigation. DATED this 30th day of June, 2010. ROBERT M. MCKENNA Attorney General ff-~ 7 D. CLARK, f" JUSTIN D, #41697 Assistant Anonm?ys General Attomoysifoi Deparunent GENERAL OF oifann OF 2 AHGMY Ci Sw 7141 1 PO Box 40124 oiympia, WA Qasm-0124 (seo) sas-am SF-02012 PRR-2011-00450 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I Tzrza Bushcm am a emzen of the Umted States of Amenea and over the age of 18 years and I am compeient to to the matters set forth herem I that on June, 30, QOH) I served a copy of thus document on the persons hsted belou as follow _#Jr Wm US Mall Postabe Prepaid AHUIUCY at Law Umted Parcel Semce Next Day Au ?505 NW E1 ABC/Legal Messenger lj Hand deln ered by I C81'f1fY under penalty of perjuxy under the laws of tl state of that the foregoing IS true and eomect Dated tins 30th day of June 2016 as Tumwater Tma Bushaw Legal AUGRNEY GENERAI. GF WASHINGTON OFFER OF 3 7] 41 Cleanwater D, SW 40124 0 Olympia, WA 9850443124 (360) S36-6565 SF-02013 PRR-2011-00450 - Tm wmr~=THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF THURSTON LARRY CERVANTES, a mawied prson, Plaintiff, vs. SUSUAN DREYFU S, ET AL, Deifcndants. NO. AMENDED NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF OFFER OF JUDGMENT THE PLAINTIFF, Lam' Cervantes, by and through his attorney of record, Michael Hanbcy, provides this Notice cf the Acceptance of Offcr of .Iudgment p1'opcu_ndcd by the Defendants cn 30m Day cf Junc 2010 in the amount set forth in that pleading. DATED this daycf.I1,1ne, 2010. ACCEPTANCE OF OFFER OF JUDGMENT WM. MICHAEL HANBEY, P.S. I (f 1' kc WM. MICHAEL HANBEW #7 29 for Plaintiff Wm. Michael Hanbey, PS at Law PO Box 2575 Olympia, WA 98507 fax 360-570-1593 SF-02014 PRR-2011-00450 Open COURT ll DEPARTMENT I if rn.f UCI f- ZUU5 Om 2 A I I OFFIUE or . that-4:1-tAL SOCIAL SERVICES DIV By DEPUTY STATE OF WASHINGTON PIERCE COUNTY SUPERIOR GORDON, as personal NO. 08-2-I 03 I 7-5 representative ofthe estate of Anthony Gordon, STIPULATION AND ORDER OF I Plaintiff DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, WESTERN STATE HOSPITAL, Defendant. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Plaintiff; Gordon, acting by and through her attorney. Harold Karlsvik, and Defendant, State of Washington, Department of Social and Health Services. Western State Hospital, acting by and through Robert M. Mclienna, Attorney General, and Joe Christy, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, that the above~entitled action may be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice and without costs, this matter hav_ing been fully settled and compromised between the Plaintiff and Defendant, State of Washington. A geteaewfw- DATED this I 5 day ROBERT l\/l i Joe Cl _Il 894 Harold Karlsvik WSBA #23026 A mey_ f" ea .gei /sl 3 fl* I I A Assis ant orhey General I Attorneys for Plaintiff - rneys for Defendant State of Washington I STIPULATION AND QRDER Op ATYORNEY GENERAL OFWASHINGTON 7 |41 Cleauwater Dr SW DISMISSAL WITH PO Box 40,24 Olympia, WA 98504-0l24 . (360) 586-6565 ~4 I- PRR-2011-00450 1. I 2 ORDER 3 THIS MATTER having Colne before the undersigned judge ofthe above~entitled Court, 4 based on the foregoing stipulation, now, therefore, 5 IT IS HEREBYORDERED that Defendant State of Washington, Department of 6 and Health Services, Western State Hospital, shall be disinissed from the above-entitled action 7 withprejudioe and without costs or interest to any party. 8 DONE OPEN this gmlday 9 I Many E, Dieke IO Court Commissioner i 1 P5555 I2 Qui/Jr Coififtiflfi 155/on Cf' 13 Presented by: Approved as to Form and I 4 Notice of Presentation Waived: ROBERT M. l5 Attomey General 2 A I6 p"T I;isa/,J ., 894\ Hamid Karisvik, #23026 . 5/ I Assist nt Attorney General Attomeys for Plaintiff 7 7 ?57 I9 Atto eys for Defendant 2 20 ei i '5 2002? I IN open oouat 2 1 EY DARTE DEPARTMENT 22 23 UCI 2 4 ZUIIB 24 PIERCE eouutv, Clerk 25 DEPUTY 26 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON STIPULATION AND ORDER OF 2 DISMISSAL, WITH PREJUDICE SW Olympia. WA 98504-0124 . (360) 58645565 SF-02016 PRR-2011-00450 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT is entered into and effective as of the date of mutual execution hereof; by and among GORDON, in her individual capacity and as personal representative of the estate of Anthony Gordon, Plaintiff; and the STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES (hereinafter Defendant. RECITALS WHEREAS, onor about Qluly 15, 2008, Gordon commenced a lawsuit against DSHS under the Public Records Act (42.56 RCW), asserting that DSI-IS did not timely disclose records that she (through her agent, Franklin Wilson) requested from DSI-IS on January 10, 2008 relating to Anthony Gordon's care at Western State Hospital, Pierce County Cause No. 08~2~ l03 l7-5. WHEREAS, in light of the risks, uncertainties, and expenses associated with litigation, the parties have elected to resolve and settle the various claims as set forth in the subject complaint, without admitting liability therefor, and to dismiss the same with prejudice on the following terms and conditions: A SETTLEMENT AND CONDITIONS NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set forth below and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree: 1. That as full accord, satisfaction, and final settlement of all disputed legal and/or equitable claims, causes of action, and/or liability that may have arisen ormay hereafter arise as such claims, causes of action and/or liability may in any Way be related to the alleged 'ia it . wrongdoing for which she alleges the State of Washington and its iaxgeddiedi gre "lidble and which are included in the subject matter of the lawsuit described above, DSHS shall pay to SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Page of 4 SF-02017 PRR-2011 00450 Gordon the principal sum of Twelve Thousand, Five Hundred and 00/100 Dollars Payment shall be made to the order of her attorney, Harold Karlsvilc, in trust for the benefit of Gordon. 2. In consideration for the payment described in paragraph 1, Gordon, in her personal' capacity and as personal representative of the estate of Anthony Gordon, agrees to voluntarily dismiss with prejudice all asserted claims in her lawsuit against DSHS under Pierce County Superior Court Cause No. 08-2-10317-5. Upon receipt of the payment identified in Paragraph hereinabove, Gordon and DSI-IS, by and through their attorneys,'shall sign and file with the court a stipulation and agreed order of voluntary dismissal with prejudice, as provided under Attachment A. 3. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, Gordon, in her personal capacity and as personal representative of the estate of Anthony Gordon, and DSHS, for themselves and each of their respective heirs, successors, assigns, officers, agents, attorneys, or representatives do hereby mutually, irrevocably and unconditionally release, acquit, and forever discharge each other and each of their respective heirs, executors, representatives, administrators, successors, assigns, principals, agents, and employees from any and all legal claims, liabilities, obligations, promises, agreements, damages, causes of action, suits, demands, costs, losses, debts and expenses (including attorney fees) related to the January 10, 2008 written request by Gordon (through her agent, Franklin Wilson) to DSHS (Western State Hospital) for the disclosure and release of records related to decedent Anthony Gordon, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Attachment B, and incorporated by reference herein. This release of claims does not limit or otherwise modify any obligations that DSHS may have in responding to any additional or future requests under Chapter 42.56 RCW by Gordon to DSI-IS for the release and/or disclosure of documents not included in the January 10, 2008 request. This settlement shall not affect and is not to be construed as a release of the pending wrongful death and outrage claims, or any other claims related to Mr. Anthony Gordon's care and death on SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Page 2 of 4 SF-02018 PRR-2011 00450 January -4, 2008 at Western State Hospital. 4. 1 The undersigned hereby declares that the terms of this settlement have been completely read and are fully understood and voluntarily accepted, for the purpose of making a full and final compromise, adjustment and settlement of any and all claims, disputed or otherwise, Without any admissions of liability by the parties herein released. _Each party represents and acknowledges that in executing this Agreement, they do not rely and have not relied upon any representation or statement made by the other party or by the other parties' agents, representatives, or attorneys not containediherein concerning the subject matter, basis, or effect of this Agreement. Each party acknowledges that they have been given the opportunity to consult with and obtain the advice of counsel of duly licensed attorneys, and that each of them has executed this Agreement freely and voluntarily and Without fraud, duress or undue influence. 5. This Agreement is made and entered into in the State of Washington and shall in all respects be interpreted and enforced and governed under Washington law. 6. This release and the attached Stipulated Order entered by the Court contain the entire agreement ofthe parties. The language of all parts of this Agreement shall in all cases be construed as a whole, according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any of the parties. 7. This Agreement includes any attorney fees, costs and any adverse tax consequences to plaintiffs. A 8. In the event that either party hereto shall commence an action to enforce any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action shall recover from the non-prevailing party all costs and disbursements incurred by such prevailing party, including reasonable attomey's fees, 9. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed as an original, and all of which taken together shall constitute a single instrument. Signatures transmitted by facsimile or via email by Portable Document Format (PDF) shall be accepted as SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Page 3 of 4 SF-02019 PRR-2011 00450 binding absent reasonable question as to the authenticity of the same. l0. The person or persons executing and delivering this Agreement on behalf of each party hereby represents and warrants that each of them is duly authorized to sign and execute this Agreement. - DATED this day of August 2008. PLAIN TIFF - GORDON [Signature/Date] Gordon, in her personal capacity and as the personal representative ofthe estate of Anthony Gordon STATE OF ss. COUNTY OF A I, the undersigned, a notary public in and for the State of Washington, hereby certify that on this day of 2008, personally appeared before me Gordon, to me known to be the individual described and who executed the foregoing instrument, and aolcnowledged that she signed and sealed the same as her free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. NOTARY PUBLIC in and forthe State of Washington, residing at: Given under my hand and official seal the day and year last written: [Signature] My Commission expires: DEFENDANT - DSHS [Signature/Date] as Gail Douglas, Director Division of Legal Services Health and Recovery Services Administration Department of Social and Health Services SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Page 4 of 4 SF-02020 PRR-2011-00450 . SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT i THIS AGREEMENT is entered into and effective as ofthe date of 4 mutual execution hereof, by and among GORDON, in her individual capacity and as personal representative of the estate of Anthony Gordon, Plaintiff] and the STATE on wasninoron, on socntt AND HEALTH Defendant. A WHEREAS, 'on or about July 15, 2008, Gordon commenced a lawsuit against DSHS under the Public Records Act (42.56 RCW), asserting that DSHS did not timely disclose records that site'l(through her agont,lFranklin Wilson) requested from DSI-IS on January 10, 2008 relating to Anthony Gordon's care st Western State Hospital, Pierce County Cause No. 08~2- 7-5. WHEREAS, in light ofthe risks, uncertainties, and expenses associated with litigation, the parties have elected to resolve and settle various claims as set forth in the subject complaint, without admitting liability therefor, and to dismiss the same with prejudice on the following: conditioner 0 0 SETTLEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS NOW. in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set forth below and other" good and valuable?consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, 'the parties agree: 1. "1-'hat as full accord, satisfaction, and final settlement of all disputed legal and/or equitable claims. causes ol' action, and/or liability that may have arisen or may hereafter arise as such claims, causes of action and/or liability may in any way be related to the alleged wrongdoing For which she alleges the State of Washington and its agencies are liable and which arc included subject matter of the lawsuit described above, DSHS shall pay to AGREEMENT Page I ot'4 1: SF-02021 PRR-2011 00450 li Gordon the principal sum ul` Twelve Thousand, Five Hundred and 00/ 100 Dollars Payment shall be made to the order of her attorney, l-lm-old Karlsvik, in trust for the benelit of Gordon; 4 2. ln consideration for the payment described in paragraph 1, Gordon., in her personal capacity and as personal represeniative of the estate of Anthony Gordon, agrees to voluntarily disrniss with prejudice all asserted claims in her lawsuit against DSHS under Pierce County Superior Court Cause No, Upon receipt of the payment identified in Paragraph 1 hereinabove, Gordon and DSHS, by and through their attorneys, shall Sign and tile with the court a stipulation and. agreed order of voluntary dismissal with prejudice, as provided under Attachment A. 3. fiuhject to the tenrzs of this Agreement, Gordon, in her personal capacity and as persooalprepresentetive of the estate of Anthony Gordon, and DSHS, for themselves and each of their respective assigns, officers, agents, attorneys, or representatives do hereby mutually, irrevocably and unconditionally release, acquit, and forever discharge each other and each,pF their respective heirs, executors, representatives, adrninistratorsi successors, assigns, principals, agents, :ind employees from any and all legal claims, liabilities, obligations, promises, agreements, damages, causes of action, suits, demands, costs, losses, debts and expenses (incluping attomey fees) related to the January 10, 2008 written request by Gordon (through her agent, Franklin Wilson) to DSHS (Western State Hospital) for the disclosure and release of records related to decedent Anthony Gordon, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as ii, and incorporated by reference herein. This release of claims does notzlimit or otherwise modify any obligations that DSHS may have in responding to any additional future _requests under Chapter 42.56 RCW by Gordon to DSHS for the release and/or lglisclosure of documents not included in the January 10, 2008 request. This settlement shall,_not affect and is not to be construed as a release of the pending wrongful death and outrage claims, or any other claims related to Mr. Anthony Gordon's care and death on Page 2 off# 't SF-02022 PRR-2011 00450 January 4, 2008 'at Western State Hospital, 4. The undersigned hereby declares that the terms ef this settlement have been completely read and are tially understood and voluntarily accepted, for the purpose of making a full and final compromise, adjustment and settlement of any and all claims, disputed or otherwise, without any admissions of liability by the parties herein released. Each party represents and acknowledges that in executing this Agreement, they do not rely and have not relied upon any representation or statement made by the other party or by the other parties' agents. representatives. er attorneys not contained herein concerning the subject matter, basis, or effect of this Agreement. Each party acknowledges that they have been given the opportunity to consult with and obtain the advice of counsel of duly licensed attorneys, and that each of them' has executed this Agreement freely and voluntarily and without fraud, duress or undue influence. 5. 'ifhis Agreement is made and entered into in-the State of Washington and shall in all respects heinterpreted and enforced and governed under Washington law. 6, This release and the attached Stipulated Order entered by the Court contain the entire agreement of the parties. The language of all parts of this Agreement shall in all cases be construed as a zigvhole, according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for oragainst any of the parties. 7. 'lghis Agreement includes any . attorney fees, costs and any adverse tax consequences to plaintiffs. 8. In the event that either party hereto shall commence an action to enforce any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action shall recover from the non-prevailing?paity all costs and disbursements incurred by such prevailing party, including reasonable fees. 9. 'lfhis Agreement may he executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed as an original, and all of which taken together shall constitute _a single instrument. Signatures transmitted hy facsimile or via email by Portable Document Format (PDF) shall be accepted as xnrr|,aM ENT aeaesmarur Page SF-02023 PRR-2011 00450 binding absent reasonable question as to the authenticity 10. lihe person or persons executing and delivering this Agreement on behalf of each party hereby and warrants that each of them is duly authorized lo sign and execute this /\g,recmem. DATEDZ mis ggi day effmgusl zoos. PLAINTIFF -- GORDON af Sign .ure/Dare, Gordongin her personal capuuity and as the personal representative of the-estate of Anthony Gordon STATE OF I ss. _2ee<, I. notary public in and for the State ef Washington, hczjeby certify that on this .Fe rlny of - 2008, personally appeared before me Gordon, to me known Le be the individue described and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that she signedgand scaled the same as her free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and purposes therein - NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State resiclixig at: iff asm-Q, rw/L o%1\1l _gg eflluiul seal Lhe day and year lasl wriuenz.. . I I _ld nature] My expxresz 2; DEFENDANT-DSHS ~le~ so [Signature/Date] Gail Douglas, Director Division o1`Leg31I Services - Health and Recovery Services Department of Social and Health Services SETTLEM ENT AGREEMENT Page 4 of 4 . SF-02024 PRR-2011-00450 STATE OF WASHINGTON PIERCE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT GORDON. as personal NO. 08~2- I O3 7~5 representative ofthe estate of Anthony Gordon, A STIPULATION AND ORDER OF Plaintiff DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE STATE OF WASI-IENGTON. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, WESTERN STATE HOSPITAL, Defendant. iT_iS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Plaintiff; Gordon, aetingby and through her attorney, Harold Karisvik, and Defendant, State of Washington, Department of Social and Health Services, Western State Hospital, acting by and through Robert M. McKenna, Attorney General, and Joe Christy, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, that the 'above-entitled action may be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice and without costs, this matter having been fully settled and compromised between the Plaintiff and Defendant, State of Washington. DATED this I5 day Rossnt M. MCKENNA A rney al - A ,fa fe/ 7 Zee Joe ris lr., WS A 894 Harold Karlsvik, WSBA #23926 Assis ant ttorney General Attorneys for Plaintiff - a I rneys For Defendant State of Washington STIPLILATIQN AND QRDER gp Avroansv GENERAL or WASHINGTON Dismissal. WITH PRE.rnoiC1=; Olympia, WA 98504-0 S24 (360) 586-6565 SF-02025 PRR-2011-00450 ORDER THIS MATTER having come before the unclersignedjudge ofthe above~entitled Court, based on the foregoing stipulation, now, therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant State of Washington, Department of Social A and Health Services, Western State Hospital, shall be dismissedfroin the above~entitled action with prejudice and without' costs or interest to any party. DONE OPEN this day of HONORABLE JUDGE Presented by: Approved as to Form and Notice of Presentation Waived: ROBERT M. MCKENNA Attorney General I ILA Joe Cl 1sty,J ., 894 amid Assist nt Attorney General Attorneys for Plaintiff 48/ Attoi eys for Defendant AND QRDER op 2 AWORNEY GENERAL or WASHINGTON 7141 Cieanwaler Dr SW DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE PO Box ,om WA 98504-OIZ24 (360) 586-6565 SF-02026 PRR-2011-00450 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY A No. io-2-30225-5 SEA MICHAEL HOGE, 5; gf-ge ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff; THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH MOTION v. FORSUMMARY JUDGMENT STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, Defendant. THIS MATTER having corne before the_Court on Defendant, State of Washington, Department of Social and Health Services' (Department) Motion for Summary Judgment granting dismissal of this action with prejudice, and the Court having considered the following documents in addition to the motion: 1. The Declaration of Justin D. Farmer in Support of the Departmenfs Motion for Summary Judgment and the attachments thereto. 2. The Declaration of Kelley Sttutevant in Support of the Departinenfs Motion for Summary Judgment. . A 3. The Declaration of Lori Lashway in Support of the Department's Motion for I Summary Judgment and the attachments thereto. ORDER GRANTING THE 1 P0 Box 40124 SUMMARY JUDGMENT Olympia, WA 98504~0l24 (360)586-6565 SF-02027 PRR-2011-00450 4. Plaintiff' response and the accompanying declarations and attachments hereto, if any. 6. The Department's reply and the accompanying declarations and attachments hereto, if any. 7 . The oral argument ofthe parties. And the Court having reviewed the records and tiles herein, and being fully advised, NOW, THEREFORE, THE COURT FINDS: The Department acted reasonably and in good faith in responding to Mr. Hoge's various requests. 2. . The Department complied with the mandates of the Public Records Act, Title 42.56 RCW by providing Mr. Hoge with the utmost assistance. 3. The Department provided Mr. Hoge with all responsive records in a timely fashion. 4. Mr. Hoge possessed all responsive records prior to tiling this lawsuit. 5. Mr. Hoge provided insufficient evidence' to overcome the Department's motion for summary judgment. 6. A party cannot be a "prevailing party" when all records are provided to him before the lawsuit if tiled. 7. There are no genuine issues of material fact and the court may rule on summary judgment. - ORDER GRANTIN THE 2 DEPARTMENTS MOTION FOR P0 Bm. 40124 SUMMARY JUDGMENT SF-02028 PRR-2011-00450 1 NOW, THEREFORE, based on the above findings, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, 2 . AOJUOOED, AND OEOREED mat 15Iaintiff's Motion for Judgment Ruling for 3 Dismissal with Prejudice is GRANTED. M7 4 DONE IN OPEN COURT this 22, 'day of Z/_Lfi 2011. 5 7 HONORABLE 8 Presented by: 9 ROBERT M. MCKENNA Attorney General 10 11 1 . FARMER, WSB 697 1 ssistant Attorney Gener 14 Attorneys for Dep :ff ent Approved as to Form: 1 5 16 1 7 MICHAEL HOGE, WSB #6180 18, Plaintiff ORDER GRANTING THE 3 DEPARTMENTS MUTION FOR pg Box 40124 SUMMARY JUDGMENT WA 93504-0124 (seo) ssesses SF-02029 PRR-2011-00450 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (liereinafter, "Agreement") is entered into and effective as of the date of mutual execution hereof, by and among ROBERT PORTER, (hereinafter "Mn Po1ter") and the STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, (hereinafter "DepaLtrnent"). i RECITALS WHEREAS, on or about April 14, 2010, Mr. Porter commenced a lawsuit under the Public _Records Act (42.56 RCW) under Pierce County Cause No. asserting that the Department did not comply with the Public Records Act in response to l\/fr. Porter's November 17, 2008 records request (hereinafter, "records request"). WHEREAS, the Department represents that all documents that were responsive to Mr. Po1ter's records request were disclosed to Mr. Porter, no responsive documents were wrongfully withheld, and all redactions were made pursuant to a specific, and proper, statutory exemption. WHEREAS, the Department provided Mr. Porter with all documents responsive to his records request. in light of the risks, uncertainties, and expenses associated with litigation, the Department and Mr. Porter (hereinafter collectively, "Parties") have elected to resolve and settle the various claims as set forth in the subject complaint, without admitting liability thereof, and to dismiss the same with prejudice on the following terms and conditions: SETTLEMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants set forth below and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows :l l. That as full accord, satisfaction, and iinal settlement of all disputed, or AGREEMENT Page 1 of 4 SF-02030 PRR-2011 00450 undisputed, legal and/or equitable claims, Causes of action, and/or liability that may have arisen or may hereafter arise as such claims, causes of action and/or liability may in any way be related to the allegediwrongdoing for which Mr. Pcrter alleges the Department, State of Washington, or its agencies are liable, and which may be included in, or relate to, the subject matter of the lawsuit described above, the Department shalt pay to Mr. Porter the principal sum of Four Thousand Five-Hundred and 00/100 Dollars Payment shall be made to the order of his attorney, John C. Andrews, in trust for the benefit cf Mr. Porter. 2. In consideration for the payment described in Paragraph 1 of this Agreement, Mr. Porter agrees to voluntarily dismiss with prejudice all asserted claims in his lawsuit against the Department under Pierce County Superior Court Cause No. 10-2-08364-8. Upon mutual execution of this Agreement, the Department shall tender the aforementioned payment to Mr. Andrews via certified mail. Upon delivery and receipt of the payment identitied in Paragraph hereinabove, the Parties, by and through their attorneys, shall sign and file with the court, a Stipulation and Agreed Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, attached hereto as Appendix A. I 3. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, Mr. Porter, for himself and each of his respective heirs, successors, assigns, officers, agents, attorneys, or representatives, does hereby mutually, irrevocably and unconditionally release, acquit, and forever discharge the Department and each of its respective representatives, administrators, successors, assigns, principals, agents, and employees from any and all legal claims, liabilities, obligations, promises, agreements, damages, causes of action, suits, demands, costs, losses, debts and expenses (including attorney fees) of any nature whatsoever, which Mr. Porter now has or may hereinaiter claim to have against the Department by reason of any matter, act, omission, cause or event that has occurred prior to this date, which is related to his records request and the claims asserted in this lawsuit against the Department under Pierce County Superior Court Cause No. SETTLEMENT A GREEMENT Page 2 of 4 SF-02031 PRR-2011 00450 4. The Parties hereby declare that the terms of this Agreement have been completely read and are fully understood and voluntarily accepted, forthe purpose of making a full and final compromise, adjustment, and settlement of any and all claiinsgdisputed or otherwise, without any admissions of liability by the Parties herein released. The Parties represent and acknowledge that in executing this Agreement, they do not rely and have not relied upon any representation or statement made by the other party or by the other Parties' attorneys not contained herein concerning the subject matter, basis, or effect of this Agreement. The Parties acknowledge that they have been given the' opportunity to consult with and obtain the advice of duly licensed attorneys, and that each of them has executed this Agreement freely and voluntarily and without fraud, duress, or undue influence. 5, is made and entered into in the State of Washington and shall in all respects be interpreted and enforced and governed under Washington law. This Agreement and the Stipulation and Order of Dismissal, the later to be tiled with the court upon execution of this Agreement, contain the entire agreement and understanding of the Parties. The language of all parts of this Agreement shall in all cases be construed as a whole, according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against either ofthe Parties. This Agreement includes any attorney fees, costs, and any adverse tax consequences to Mr. Porter. 7. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed as an original, and all of which taken together shall constitute a single instrument. Signatures transmitted by facsimile shall be accepted as binding absent reasonable question as to the authenticity ofthe sa as /0 Robert orter Date Signed AGREEMEN Page 3 of 4 SF-02032 PRR-2011 00450 sf 296 Sharon Gilbert, Deputy i ector of Field Observations Date Signed ChiIdren's Administration Department of Social and Health Services SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Page 4 of 4 SF-02033 PRR-2011-00450 of=F1cE NOV 09 2010 UF was soot/na it SERVICES tm/ 2 .I ilasgjv T73 ff?-ll _,El Q3 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR PIERCE COUNTY ROBERT PORTER, a single man, NO. I0-2-08364-8 Plaintiff, STEULATION AND ORDER OF v. DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, Defendant. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Plaintiff, ROBERT PORTER, acting by and through his attorney, John C. Andrews, and Defendant, STATE OF WASHEJGTON, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, acting by and through Robert M. McKenna, Attorney General, and Justin D. Farmer, Assistant Attorney General, that the above-entitled matter having been fully settled and compromised between the parties maybe dismissed ii its entirety with prejudice and without costs. - DATED this cg" day of ,_2o1o. ROBERT M. MCKENNA Attorney General STINJD. FARNIER, . A #41697 .IO C. ANDREWS, BA #21387 Assistant Attonrey??eral Attob ey for Plaintiff . 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WITH PREIUDICE A 7 SW Olympia. WA 98504-0124 (360) 586-6565 SF-02034 PRR-2011-00450 GRDER TI-HS MATTER having eonte before the undersigned Judge of the above-entitled Court, based on the foregoing stipulation, now, therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: l. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 2. The parties shall bear their own costs and no attorney fees shall be awarded. DONE in oounr this day of Ur/ 2010. for Rngr? 1 ongn of A Presented byANDREWS, WSBA #21387 ttorit for Plaintiff Appr ed as to Form tice of Presentation Waived ROBERT M. MCKENNA Attorney General ms i>>a #41697 sistant Attorney - ral Attorneys for nt STIPULATIGN AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PRETUDICE .. "RM`n`}mv` ,ni-4 55.111 72' 2 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 7 l4l Cfeanwaler Dr SW PO Box 40124 Olympia. WA (360) 586-6565 SF-02035 PRR-2011-00450 The Honorable Douglas McBroom Date of Hearing: March 14, 2008 Time: 11:00 a.m. (With Orai Argument) STATE or WASHINGTON KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT PROFESSIONAL NETWORK, INC., a No. 06-2-16057-6 SEA Washington corporation, 1 ORDER GRANT1NG Plaintiff MOTION Pon SUMMARY JUDGMENT VS. WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL and HEALTH SERVICES, Defendant. 3 I THIS MATTER came before the undersigned Judge of the above-entitled Court on the Motion for Summary Judgment and to Determine Final Idelief Under the Public Records Act (PRA), brought by the defendant, State of Washington; Department of Social and Health Services (Department), through its attorneys, Robert McKenna, Attorney General, and John D. Clark, Assistant Attorney General.. The plaintiff, Professional Network, Inc. (PNI), responded through its attorney, David T. Hasbrook of O'Shea Barnard Martin. Having heard argument of counsel and having reviewed the following: f' 1. Defendanfs Memorandum in Support of *Defendant'S Motion for Summary Judgment and in Response to Plaintiff' Fourth Motion for Relief Under the 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 141 Cleanwa er Dr SW MOTION FOR 7 PO Box 1:0124 Ol ia WASESOQQIBG4 SUMMARY JUDGMENT 2. Declaration of John Clark in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment and in Support of Depart1nent's Response to Plaintiffs Fourth Motion for Relief; 3. Declaration of Sandra Hintz; 4. Declaration of rcagrai K. Wiitala; 5. Declaration of Narvie Seals; and 6. The other pleadings andrecords tiled herein, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJ UDGED, and DECREED: I. FINDINGS OF FACT A 1. The final public records search issue in this case was the Search of Department LAN sewers. 2. Defendant complied with this Court's August 7, 2007 order that required it to participate with PNI's consultant, Mark Walters, and search Department LAN servers for records that are responsive to plaintiff" public record requests. 3. Defendants search and response for identifiable records responsive to plaintiff" 1 public records requests is complete. 4. The search of Department LAN serversfresulted in new documents being discovered and provided to plaintiff. 5. The Department acted in good faith in carrying out the Search of Department LAN servers with PNI's consultant, Mark Walters. 6. The eight documents submitted to the Court by defendant for in camera review contain communications between the Department, as a client, and the Office of the Attorney General, actingas an attorney forthe Department. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON ORDER GRANTING 2 714, Cleanwaterijr SW MOTION FOR PO Box 40124 Ol ia, WA SUMMARY JUDGMENT 536,pmQ_2011_00450 11. CONCLUSIONS or LAW 1. Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 2. Defendant completed its search for responsive records under the Public . i Disclosure Act and provided 211 responsive documents to plaintiff 5" 'aff fu /#fm ,ff fe;//4 fo ,O/yi/,f /*ff 7%/f 3. The eight documents submitted by the Department for in camera review are exempt from disclosure based on attorney-client privilege under RCW 42.56.070?l) and RCW 5.6o.o6o. /mir/< Wa//*eff 0l/H1 7* Cl arg ITIS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUD ED, AND DECREED that the Depaftmenfs Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND THAT: A. Plaintifi pursuant to RCW 42.56.550(4) (formerly RCW is awarded the following penalty under the Public Records Act: Q3 30 Pefbay forthe period 063 tiifougii /1 2 L, Equal to [2 Days Day //[7670 Penalty. B. Plaintiff is awarded the following attorney fees and costs for work performed from 2007 to W/Malt, lm? i Costs: 35 Attorney Fees: . 67 Total: Fewer' an f/ 504'/re 3 57 C7067 C. Defendant shall pay plaintiff all sums ordered within -thirt-y~days of this Order. . r'u/fear( ff/Q ffl# D. The eight documents submitted by the Department and out ined in their privilege log indexing 68 communications claimed to be exempt from disclosure due to attorney-client privilege, upon in camera review by this Court, are attomey~client privileged documents and exempt from disclosure to plaintiff ORDER GRANTING 3 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON can a er Dr SW MOTION Fon Ol ia, WA amp 9? SUMMARY JUDGMENT (360) E. This is a final judgment and adjudicates all pending issues in this ease. DATED this /Lf* day of March, 2008. ag UM 162% ir GED GLAS MCEROOM Presented By: ROBERT M. MCKENNA Attorney General . Jo?? D. WQBA #28537 A sistant Attorney General Attorneys for Defendant wit" V056/"r A ORDER GRANTING 4 Fon SUMMARY JUDGMENT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 714| Cleanwater Dr SW PO Box 4OE24 Olympia, WA 98504-0124 (360) 586EURH5EURD32039 PRR-2011-00450 A ECEWE200 RECEIVED FDR FILING OFFICE oI= TI-IE ATTORNEY GENERAL COUNTY CLERK SOCIAL a HEAIJII-I SERVICES DIV SEP 1 2 2007 DAVID w. PETERSON STATE OF WASHINGTON I KITSAP COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ERIC A.T. PUGH, A married individual, No. 07-2-00l99~l Plaintifii sriPU1;.AnoN AND ORDER V. . or DISMISSAL DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL and HEALTH SERVICES, an agency of the State of Washington, Defendant. - STIPULATION The parties, by and through their attorneys of record, and pursuant to CR 4l(a), hereby stipulate and agree that all of Plaintiff' Claims in the above-captioned matter shall be dismissed with prejudice and Without any costs to either party. DATED this day of september, 2007. ROBERT M. MCKENNA Attorney General JOHN C. ANDREWS, WSBA #21387 SCOTT T. WSBA #37920 Attorney for Plaintiff Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Defendant STIPULATIQN AND ORDER 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON Cl I sw or VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL Olympia' WA 985 4_ (360) I E- - PRR-2011-00450 ORDER Based upon the foregoing stipulation, IT HEREBY ORDERED that all of Plaintiff' claims in the above-captioned matter are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and without any costs to either party. DATED this Q7/`w`day of September, 2007. LEILA MILLS COMMISSIONER Kitsap County Superior Court Presented by: ROBERT M. MCKENNA Attorney General Lili SCOTT T. MIDDLETON, WSBA #3 7 920 Assistant Attorney General Attorney for Defendant Approved for Entry; Notice of Presentation Waived: JOHN C. ANDREWS, WSBA #21387 Attorney for Plaintiff STIPULATIQN AND QRDER 2 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 714| Cl SW or VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL Olympia, WA 985 (360) R-2011-00450 'na uuv DDA @0132/003 RECEIVED FOR coumv SEP 1 2 2007 W. PETERSON STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ERIC AIT. PUGH, El monied individual, NO. 0752-00199-1 Plaintiff; STEPULATION AND ORDER v. OF VOLUNTARY DISMIS SAL DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL and HEALTH SERVICES, an agency ofthe State of Washington, Defendant. - STIPULATION The parties, by and through their attorneys of record, and pursuant to CR 41(a), hereby stipulate and agree that all of Plaintiffs claims in the above-captioned matter shall be dismissed with prejudice and without any costs to either party. DATED this day of september, 2007. ROBERT M. MCIQENNA Attorney General JOHN .ANDR I SBA #21387 SCOTT T. MIDDLETON, WSBA #37920 Atto for Plaintiff Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Defendant STIPULATIQN AND ORDER 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON or VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL SW Olympih. WA 96504-0 E24 (360) $866565 I SF-02042 PRR-2011-00450 La?tdr-1 -UrORDER 'Egl Based upon me foregoing stipulation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all of Plaintiffs claims in the above-captioned matter are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREIUDICE and without any costs to either party. DATED this day ofSeptembor, 2007. Presrirlted by: ROBERT M. MCKENNA Attorney General LEILA MILLS COMMISSIONER Kitsap County Superior Court SCOTT T. MIDDLETON, WSBA #37920 Assistant Attorney General Attorney for Defendant Approved for Emmy; Notice of Presentation Waived: .ANDREW Atto for Plaintiff MD ORDER 2 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON or voLoN'mRY DISMISSAL SW Olympin, WA 98504-0124 (350) 585-6555 SF-02043 PRR-2011-00450 21199 2921109 ;i.evi$ A -A A STATE OF WASHINGTON KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT STEVEN AND STEPHANIE ROSTAD, - NO. SEA Plaintiffs, vs. - STIPULATION AND ORDER os DISMISSAL THB siwrs os WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT os soonu, AND HEALTH SERVICES AND THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Defendants. It is hereby stipulated by the parties, through counsel of record, that in the above- captioned action, Plaintiffs' clahns for relief against the Washington Departrnezit of Social and Health Services be dismissed with prejudice without costs to eitber party. DATED this?fl day of September, 2009. . ROBERT M. MCKENNA Attorney General REBECCA R. GLAS OW, WSB o. 32886 Assistant Attorney Genera1 Attorney for DSHS GRAHAM DUNN PC a. ITH A. ENDEJAN, WSBA o. 11016 Attorney for Plaintiffs . 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 7141 Dr SW . PO Box 40124 Olympia, WA 98504-0124 (360) $86-6555 SF-02044 PRR-2011-00450 . i A I Q2 3? I pupfiaiiki ORDER Pursuant to the foregoing stipulation, it is hereby ORDERED in the abevewaptioned matter that the Plaintiffs' claims for relief against the Washington Department of Social and Health Services are DISMISSED with prejudice without costs to eitherparty. The Clerk ofthe Court is directed to enter judgment of dismissal as set forth herein. . SEP 2 2 25:19 DATED fhiS day Of 2009- THE HONORABLE GREGORY P. CAN OVA King County Superior Court Judge Presented by: ROBERT M. MCKENNA I Attorney General 1 REBECCA R. GLASGOW, WS No. 32886 Assistant Attorney General Attorney for Defendants Approved by: GRAHAM DUNN PC ITH A. ENDEJAN, WSBA 11016 ttorney for Plaintiffs 2 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 7141 Cleenwater Dr SW PO Box 40124 Olympia, WA 98504-0124 -- (360) 586-S565 SF-02045 PRR-2011-00450 Settlement Agreement and Release This settlement agreement and release ("Settlement Agreement" or "Agreen1ent") is made between Plaintiffs Steven and Stephanie Rostad ("the Rostads") and the Washington Department of Social and Health Services, a state agency The Rostads and DSHS will be collectively referred to as "the parties." Recitals The Rostads and DSHS are parties to Steven and Stephanie Rostad v. State of Washington, Department of Social and Health Services and the State of Washington Department of Health, King County Superior Court, No. 09-2~ 03121-5 SEA. On August 6, 2009, the King County Superior Court granted the Rostads' motion for judgment in part, and ordered that DSHS pay public records penalties in the amount of $33,250, but the court left the issue of costs and reasonable attorney fees to be determined at a later date. On August 20, 2009, DSHS paid to the Rostads $33,250 as ordered by the court. The parties desire to settle and compromise this lawsuit. Agreement In consideration ofthe mutual agreements, covenants, and conditions contained herein the parties agree as follows: Pa@ent by DSHS: DSHS will pay to the Rostads the additional sum of Forty One Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty Dollars ($4l,750) on or before September 30, 2009 in full satisfaction of any remaining obligations DSHS may have arising from this lawsuit. This amount is intended to cover any and all remaining costs, fines, penalties, and attorney fees. DSHS Representations: DSHS has completed a due diligence search and believes that all non-exempt records responsive to the Rostads' public records request(s) have been produced. In addition, DSHS has agreed to provide the letter attached as Exhibit A. Mutual Release: Except for the promises and covenants contained in this Agreement, each party, on behalf of itself and its present and former predecessors, successors, subsidiaries, affiliates, and assigns, hereby irrevocably, fully, and forever release each other from all claims, manners of action, causes of action, rights, losses, charges, liabilities, duties, and demands SF-02046 PRR-2011 00450 of any kind or nature whatsoever, known or unknown, accrued or unaccrued, liquidated or unliquidated, in law or in equity, that either party might claim to have or have had, individually or collectively arising out of the subject matter of this lawsuit. Dismissal of Lawsuit: The Rostads will not appeal the superior court's order and will instead, within five (5) business days of the effective date of this Agreement, stipulate to dismissal of this lawsuit with prejudice without any further costs to any party thereto. Pending and Future Public Records Requests: Within five (5) business days of the effective date of this Agreement, the Rostads will withdraw in writing all pending requests for pubiic records from DSHS, (including but not limited to those dated September l, 2, and 3, 2009). The Rostads will not submit to DSHS any additional public records requests regarding or relating to any investigation(s) of or referral(s) regarding Children's Hospital. This includes any referral or investigation involving their daughter. ln addition, DSI-IS will take reasonable steps to identify when any other requester seeks DSHS records containing information about the Rostads' daughter and to provide written notice to the Rostads ofthe request within a reasonable period of time to allow the Rostads to seek protection for the requested records before their release, should they choose to do so. This will include 1) placing a note and copy of the settlement agreement in the hard copy tiles for referral numbers 1747621 and 1746192 and 2) placing an alert in the new DSHS computer system for tracking public records requests, when that system becomes available. Effective Date: This Agreement shall become effective upon execution by all of the settling parties. Outside of the agreed-upon payment recited above, the parties will bear their own costs and attorney fees. Prevailing Party: The substantially prevailing party in any action, suit, or proceeding to enforce the tenns of this Agreement is entitled to recover its reasonable costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees relating to or arising out of such action, suit, or proceeding, including any appeals thereof. Complete Ageement: This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and replaces all prior or contemporaneous written or oral agreements or understandings and may be amended only in writing signed by the parties. Countemarts: This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which, taken together, shall constitute a single instrument. SF-02047 PRR-2011 00450 . 7,341 DR PAGE e2 E181 50 235953- lfi. The individuals executing this Agreement hereto acknowledge. represent, and warrant ihat they have the authority and are empowered to bind the entity for whom they are executing. This Settlement Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit ofthe parxies, their subsidiaries, affiliates, successors, and assigns. I l. Gevemlng Law: This Agreement shall be governed and Interpreted by and under the laws ofthe State of Washington. l2. jtles and The titles and headings used in this settlement agreement are for convenience only and are not tqlbe considered in constru ing and Interpreting this Agreement melee september \7r",2009 . ,Steven Rostad' Dated: September 2009 Stephanie Resled Dated: September _,2009 'lhlaslzingion Department o'FSoclal :md Health Services Titlel SF-02048 PRR-2011-00450 0. Authority: The individuals executing this Agreement hereto acknowledge, represent, and warrant that they have the authority and are empowered to bind the entity for whom they are executing. This Settlement Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties, their subsidiaries, affiliates, successors, and assigns. `1 1. Governing Law: This Agreement shall be governed and interpreted by and under the laws ofthe State of Washington. 12. Titles and Headings: The titles and headings used in this settlement agreement are for convenience only and are not to be considered in construing and interpreting this Agreement. cated; september zoos . - Steven Rostad Dated: September 2009 Stephanie Rostad I . Dated: September18, 2009 an i - Washington Depart ofScciaI and Health Sen/:ces Title: Deputy Director, Field A Operations SF-02049 PRR-2011-00450 nr. 'rf Ninas* STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES FIELD OPERATIONS DIVISION - ADMINISTRATION I 1115 Washington sf. sa oez - PO Box 45710 - Olympia WA 98504-5710 (360) 902-7967 - TDD (360) 902-7906 FAX (360) 902-7588 September 18, 2009 Steven and Stephanie Rostad c/o Judith Endejan Graham Dunn, PC - Pier 70 I 2801 Alaskan Way, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 9812]-1128 Dear Dr. and Ms. Rcstad: This letter constitutes an element ofthe Settlement Agreement in Steven and Stephanie Rostad v. Washington State Department of Social _and Health Services, King County Superior Court Nc. 09-2-03121-5 SEA. DSHS acknowledges that it committed errors in processing your public records request. For example, DSHS inadvertently omitted sorne pages of a law enforcement report from the original production. DSHS also missed some records in its original search and should have kept more detailed records regarding your request. None of those errors was intentional, and I assure you that as an agency, DSHS is committed to compliance with the Public Records Act. DSI-IS has conducted several searches of its records and we believe that all records responsive to your public records request that are not exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act have been produced. Sincerely Sharon Gilbert Deputy Director, Field Operations Children's Administration cc: Judith Endejan, Graham Dunn, PC Rebecca Glasgow, AAG SF-02050 PRR-2011-00450 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KING COUNTY STEVEN and STEPHANIE ROSTAD, NO. 09-2-031216 SEA Plaintiffs, . ORDER GRANTIN TN PART AND VS- DENYING IN PART PLAIN MOTION FOR SUMMARY THE STATE OF WASHINGTON JUDGMENT DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH and THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Defendants. THIS MATTER came before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Sunimary Judgment, and the Court heard argument of counsel and considered the following pleadings submitted by the parties: 1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment; 2. Declaration of Stephanie Rostad, with exhibits; 3. Declaration of Judith A. Endej an, with exhibits; 4. Defendant's Response to Motion for Sumrnery Judgment; 5. Declaration of Kyle Smi&, with exhibits; ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 1 DENYING IN PART 516 THIRD MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SEATTLE WA 98104 (206) 295-9290 SF-02051 PRR-2011-00450 6. Declaration of Marcine Stevens, with exhibits; 7. Declaration of Barbara McPherson, with exhibits; 8. Declaration of Rebecca Glasgow, with exhibits; 9. Declaration of Kristal Wiitala; lO. Reply to Response to Plaintiffs Motion for Suniinary Judgment; and ll. Declaration of Stephanie Rostad in Reply to Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Suminayy Judgment, with exhibits. The defendant, Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), has conceded its liability for violation of the Public Disclosure Act (PDA) RCW li-2.56, and the Court finds said liability from the undisputed facts. The determination of the penalty for a violation of the PDA is a two-step processf l) Determine the amount of days the party was denied access; and 2) determine the appropriate per day penalty between $5 and $100 depending on the agency's actions. Yousoufian V. King County Executive, 152 Wn.2d 421, 438 (2004). The Court finds that access was denied for a total of 665 "days, as calculated by defendant. The Court does not find a sufficient basis for calcuiating the time period in the nianner advocated by plaintiffs. Neither the PDA nor Yousoufian, supra, requires such a calculation method. The Court finds that While the defendant did not act in bad faith, the defendant's actions were grossly negligent. These findings wairantan assessmentpf a fine of fifty doilars per day of violation. Now, therefore, it is hereby -Q ORDERED, ADJUDGED ANDDECREED that defendant DSHS is liable for violation ofthe PDA. It is further Gin-\Nr1No IN AND 2 I JUDGE GREGORY P- CANOVA o'sNY1No nv PART COURT MOTION sos SUMMARY JUDGMENT saints ws 98104 (206) 296-9290 SF-02052 PRR-2011-00450 I 7 perlday for 665 days, totaling $33,250. The penalty shall be paid to plaintiffs' counsel Within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The remaining issue of reasonable oostsand attorney fees to be awarded to the plaintiffs will be determined by a future motion, to be noted without oral argument. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the balance ofthe plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. DATED this day of August, 2009. - I GRE 1>,cANovA Jud the Superior Court IN PART AND 3 JUDGE GREGORY CANOVA DENYING IN PART a Km COURT MOTION Fon SUMMARY JUDGMENT A SEATTLE wa 98104 (206) 2963290 SF-02053 PRR-2011-00450 Ei tem KM3 COUN-M Hearing Time: W/c Oral Argument Jer, ti i 2011 SUPERIOR COURT CLERK BY JUAN C. BUENAFE oepuw STATE on wAsErR'eroN . KING SUPERIOR count' MATTHEW c. snwt, No. 11-2417072-'i SEA - ORDER V. Eeepcenea WASHINGTON STATE OF Clerks Action Required DEPARTMENT oi# sootat AND HEALTH SERVICES (ost-ts), Defendant(s). THIS MATTER came before 'the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Review of Agency Action Under the Public Records Act. leased on the motion for review of agency action under the Public Records. Act submitted by Plaintifb the response brief, declaration of Kathy Frey and declaration cf Tammy Miles Submitted by Defendant, and any reply brief submitted by Defendant, the Court makes the following FINDINDS OF FACT: In a letter dated October 12, 2009, Plaintiff Silva made a Written request\to the Department of Social and Health Serttices (DSI-IS) forthe dependencytemnination records for the children of another prison itunate, Reginald Bell. A 2. received this request for records on October 15, 2009, and on October 22, 2009, five business days after receiving Mr. Sil'va's request, sent ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 1 ORDEE 7141 Clearwater Dr SW PO Rox 40124 a Hi o1ympiB,wA (2 eo) sae-6565 SF-02054 -- - PRR-2011-00450 1 Mr. Silva a response confmning that he was asking "for DSI-IS records regarding Reginald Bellfs dependency termination," and informed Mr. Silva that the Departrnenfs Childrenfs Administration would hold the records he seeks, and it may take up to sixty Workdays to process the request. I 3. Mr. Silva's request for records and the release signed by Reginald Bell did not provide the names of any of the children who were involved in dependency termination proceedings that related to Reginald Bell and did not provide the of any mother of the children Mr. Silva requested records for. 4. To effectively identify and search. for dependency records, Cirildren's Administration needs the names of the children that dependency termination records pertain tc. 5. 'On October 27, 2009, which was three business days after the request was forwarded to Adrninistration, Children's Administration sent Mr. Silva a Written request for clarification of his request and asked Mr. Silva to return a completed authorization forrn signed by Reginald Bell. The authorization form DSI-IS sent back to Silva contained a request for the name and birth date ofthe people the records pertain to, and the authorization fem was I-IEPAA conipliant. i 6. DSI-IS did not receive any clarification or additional response nom Mr. Silva. The Court also makes the following CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: l. Any dependency termination records requested by Plaintizdi front DSI-IS are juvenile care agency records, and the release of such records is exclusively governed by the requirements 13.50 instead ofthe Public Records Act. 2. Becausedependency records are governed by RCW l3.50.l00Q Plaintiff is not entitled to any penalty or remedies under the Public Records Act if he believes any dependency records were Withheld from 3. Under RCW 42.56.520, an agency may seek clariication of a public records reqnest, and~it` therequesteir tails to respond, the agency is not required to take any ORDER 2 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 7141 Cleanwater Dr SW . 4 24 PO Box Ol. Olympia, WA 98504-GIZ4 (360) 58645565 F-0205 5 PRR-2011-00450 25 26 action en the request. Therefore, to the extent that any part of Plaint?'s request for records is governed by the Public Records Act, Plaintiffs failure to respond to Defendanfs request for clarification dated October 27, 2009, prohibits Plaintiff ion: being entitled to a remedy under 1 the Act. - 4. Under RCW 42.5 this Court can conduct a hearing for a motion for relief under the Public Records Act based solely on affidavits submitted by the parties; Based 'on the above findings of fact and conclusion of law, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Plaintiffs Motion for Review of Agency 1 1 Action Under the Public Records Act is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADIUDGED, AND DECREED ear Piaisenf is 1101 entitled to any relief undef aa rubric Actin relation to his records request dated October 12, 2009, and this case shall be dismissed DATED this fi; day of.Tll1Y, 2011. I-Icno Judge Julie Spector Presented by: Robert M. McKenna, Attorney General .Tc . Clark, Assistant Attorney eueral Att rneys for Department Approved as to form: Matthew G. Silva Plaintifii Pro Se ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON ORDER 3 7141 eanwater Dr SW PO Box 40124 olympia, WA 93504-0124 (seo) 586--6565 I SF-02056 PRR-2011-00450 RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Robert Tadlock, Plaintiff, acknowledges that: 1. The sum of THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS and 2. An agreement to VOLUNTARILY DISMISS with prejudice the lawsuit Tadlofrk v. Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, Thurston County Supetior Court Cause No. 06-2-00633-7, is a full accord, satisfaction, and settlement of all claims arising out of the lawsuit of Robert Tadloclf v, Washington Stare Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), 'fhuiuton County Superior Court Cause No. DSI-IS expressly denies that wrongdoing occurred and further denies any liability, Pursuant to this settlement agreement and for consideration of the sum to hc paid, ROBERT hereby releases and forever discharges the State of Washington, its Agencies and its heirs, successors, administrators, employees; and assigns from any and all actions, causes oi' action, liability, claims, and demands upon or by reason of all damages, penalties, or losses, known or unknown, which have been or may hereafter be sustained bythe undersigned in consequence 0t` said damages to the Plaintiff. ROBERT TADLOCK declares that the terms of this settlement have been completely read and fully understood and voluntarily accepted for the purpose of making a full and final compromise and settlement of any and all c1aims,lcnown or unknown, disputed or otherwise, lor the express purpose of precluding forever any additional claims for damages, penalties, or costs and fees arisinggout of or in any way connected with the allegations in the lawsuit>>0i` Robe. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SF-02057: PRR-2011 00450 Tadlock v. Washington Stare Department of Social and Health Services, Thurston County Superior Court Cause No. O6-2410633-7. omeothis 5' day of ,zooa ROB RT ADLOCK 1 STATE oe wasnxuotois . ss. County On this day of 2007, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Pubiio in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned andswom, personaliy appeared ERT TADLOCK, to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged to me that he signed -and sealed the said insuument as his itee and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. above written. 9_3 t, ot?-of I WITNESS my if fi- hereto affixed the day and year in this certiziteate 19' 551051 it I 5 I, I I PUBLIC 4 Notary Public in and forthe 64 1 State of needing at: - My Commission Expires: i Lt 1 -_lf STEP EN ONS Risk Management Administrator DSI-IS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 2 SF-02058 PRR-2011-00450 LSEPITZOOY i Ji STATE OF WASHINGTON THURSTON COUNTY SUPERIOR ROBERT A. TADLOCK, NO. 06-2-00633-7 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER i OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL V. WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, Defendant. STIPULATION The parties, by and through their attorneys of record, and pursuant to CR 4l(a), hereby stipulate and agree that all of Plaintiffs claims in the above-captioned matter shall be dismissed with prejudice and without any costs to either party. DATED this ?71 pdayof August, 2007. ROBERT M. MCKENNA Attorney General . LACYQE BA H14 CARRIE L. ASI-IAW, WSBA #20253 ALICIA O. OZANTCH, WSBA #35553 Assistant Attorneys General Attorneys for Defendant DSHS Attorney for Plaintiff Robert dlock STIPULATION AND ORDER OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON 714l Cleanwater Dr SW PO Box 40124 Olympia, WA 98504-Ol 24 SF-02059 (360) 586-6565 -00450 ORDER Based upon the foregoing stipuiation, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a11 of P1aintiff"s eiaims in the above-captioned matter are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and Without any costs to either party. we DATED this /7 day THE HONORABLE RI HA HICKS Judge, Thurston County Superior Court STHJULATIQN AND QRDER QF 2 ATTORNEY GENERAL OP WASHINGTON VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL 7141 Cleanwater Dr SW PO Box 40124 Olympia, WA 98504-0124 SF-02060 (350) 535-5555 PRR-2011-00450 11/04/os 416:59 FAX 2036230594 HAGENS BERLULN muoxow WW. SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KING COUNTY 7 3 ESTBRA L. RUTH s. and MONICA, by and through her coufbappointed 9 No. 0s~2-02570-5 SEA @1002 E0 guardian for the purposes of litigatxon, 11 Plaintiffs, A STIPULATED JUDGMENT AND 17 ORDER TO DISEURSE FUNDS V. ACTION REQULRED 13 DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES, an agency ofthe State of I4 Washington, 15 A Defendant. 16 17 JUDGMENT SUMIMARY (RCW 4.64.(l0) 18 1. Judgment Creditors: Estera Tamas Ruth Tamas 19 Monica., by and through her court-appointed 20 guardian for the purposes of litigation. 21 . 2. udgment Creditors Aftomeys: David P. Moody and Martin D, MQLEEH 22 A Hagens Berrnan Sobol Shapiro LLP 23 . 24 25 2.6 FINAL IUDGMENT AND ORDER 1 13 HAGENS BERMAN SHAPIRO ll? \30\ from ave?ur; surraavuo Sc/=mE, wg 9mm 00035443 3J"46l I TELEPHONE 1206] 623-7292 4 SF-02061 PRR-2011-00450 lf-.5 10:50 FAX 2000200504 BERMAN @1000 1 3. Judgment Debtor: State of Washington, DSI-IS 2 4. $525,001.00 3 Judgment for Estera Tomas: $175,000.00 _4 (0) Judgment forRutl1 *ramae $175,000.00 5 (0) Judgment for Monica: 175,001.00 6 5. Pre-_iuagmenf Inf.-free - $0 7 6. Post-judgment Interest: S0 8 7. Taxable Costs and Attorneys' fees: Included in Totol IudgrnentAmour1t. 0 Total: $525,001.00 A. Judgment in the arhooszt of $525,001.00 shall be taken against Defendant State of 0 11' Washington, DSHS tooresolve all claims within King County Superior Court Cause No. 08-2- 12 02570-5 B. $525,001-00 shell be deposited by Defendant State of Washington, DSHS into the 13 14 Registry ofthe King County superior Couit no later than three business days after the date of I5 entry and filing of this judgment; 16 1 C. Upon presentation of identification, the King County Superior Cotut Clerk is 17 directed to release the funds to plaintiffs' counsel, David P. Moody of Hagens Berman Sobol 18 Shapiro, I D- Release of funds to plaintiffs' counsel does not constitute oonstluotive receipt by 19 20 Monica, a disabled minor. Monica's portion ofthe settlement may be wired ljfom Hagens 21 Berman Sobel Shapiro LLP directly to Michael Longyear, Esq., the eoult-appointed litigation 22 uardian and settlement guardian for Monica pending further instructions from the Court in the 1%f;kL Ze as/I /Qecfilwf?fefad /W/eadffi 5; 23 guardianship mation; .5 - 24 25 judgment against Defendant State of Washington, and A F711 5 Jsnacwfefur /fret-'0 cs' - E. Upon receipt the Court Clerk shall enter satisfaenon ofthe 26 FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER - 2 HAGEN3 BEEMAN SOBOL SHAFIRD L1P 354 IJ 332 6| VI 1 981m 623-7297. 0 FACSIMFLE 1205! 6230574 I SF-02062 PRR-2011-00450 11/04/09 16:59 FAX 2066230594 HAGENS BERMAN lThe Court Clerk shell take all necessary steps to close this matter, including 1116 removal of all prior case scheduling orders. 4 Ordered this Qi d?y of November, 2009. Presented - HAG - A1=r1zoLL1> Artem i innfjROBERT M. MQKENNA Arrorney for Defendant DSHS . lv Carrie L. Bashaw, WSBA No. 20253 Assistant Attorney General FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER 3 _fl orable Timothy Bradshaw -13 HAGEN5 BERMAN $0301 SHAFIRO lil' 0603154-la 332461 vl 1301 SUHEZQOD mm I pam Ana-:rea . nos] sz:-can PRR-2011-00450 5 certity to be true under perjury Underthelaws ofthe State ofwashingtonthat 1 i - as d..co oft 5 umentto: -.P 3* 5 pyon I A 1 ?0 mil Ulgill lil 5 A is-ftnti' Slgned "nh 1 SUPERIGR COURT oE WASHINGTON - INANDFOR COUNTY VALERIE L. WITT, A No. A Petitioner, vs- COURTSOPINIONRE STATE OF DEPARTMENT oE PUBLIC RECCRD ACT soc1AL AND I-IEALTI-I SERVICES PENALTY 4 - Respondent. . opinion addresses penalties for violation of the Public Recoids Act folloviing court's determination thatvthe deparnnent's claim of exemption based on RCW 42.56.230'f2) was asserted improperly for most of the 243 e-mail strings examined by the court. Violation of the Public Records Act was declared by the court inan order entered on May 8, 2009, andproduction of the e-mail stings declared non-exempt occurred at that timed The issue addressednow is the penalty to belirnposed for that violation. I Dr. Witt also seeks determination that the department violated the failing to produce the 902 e-mails Whose production was conditionally restrained by Lewis County Judge Brosey on August 9, 2007, and continued by Judge Hunt on August 31, 2007. The violation alleged . The vast inajorlty, but not all, of the 243 e-Inail strings were found to be non~exe1npt Throughout, we have used the number 243, although in factit is less than this number. . 1 I . COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT A 2000 Lakcridge Dr_ S.W. - Court's Opinion re Public Records Act Penalty - 1 98502 (3 0) 5531? 4 . PM 96 - ~'l.S'li1EURf~ department's failure to produce those efmails when Ms. Big Eagle failed tovpost a required bond. I earlier concluded that the only violation of the PRA was the departrnent's claim of exemption for the 243~e~in1ail strings; and I reafhrni that determination now. The department did not violate the PRA by failing to produce the 902 e-inails while they 'remained subject to the restraint order. Dr. Witt also asks the court to consider the departrnent's lack of diligence in defending i against Ms. Big Eagle's injunction action and the departments failure to produce those records in the absence of the bond when this court is assessing the penalty for violation related to the 243 e-mail strings. I have done so, as developed below. In addition, plaintiff apparently seeks-a determination that the department further violated I . 1 the PRA by failing to produce the internet history, or log,'requested as part of Dr. Witt's November 8, 2006 request, until July 2007. declineuto enter' findings of fact and conclusions of law affirming this last 'contention for two reasons: First, the issue ofthe internet log has not been raised _before this court until' now. Recdnd, I conclude that the CR 2A Stipulationz dated October 23, 2008, disposes of the. issue. ln that agreernent, the parties stipulated: ""l`he parties agree that this i . Agreement shall constitute a full and ina! resolution of the issues identiied above, as-'well as any and all potential and possible clairns arising therefrorn." The agreement identified the issues settled as: "Thisis an Agreement to resolve outstanding issues arising from Ms. Witt's Petition to Enforce Public Records Request filed on July 20, 2007." As. noted inthe agreement, the petition specifically' identified the internet log ("internet site visitations") as an issue resolved by the agreenientg A The process of deterrnining an appropriate penalty for violation ofthe PRA is three steps: is a determination of the nuniber of records affected by the Violation, second is a calculation of the number of days the record or records were wrongfully withheld, _and third is selection_of a per diem penalty between $5 and $100. address each in ttun. A 2 Sc titled, but called an Agreement in the body ofthe document. 3 The violation ofthe PRA asserted regarding internet history is delay/_in producing that record, not that any portion of it was wrongfully withheld. If the CR 2A Stipulation did not exist, this claim of delay in producing the internet log could support payment of costs and fees or could be considered as an aggravating factor for penalties assessed for wrongfully withholding production ofthe e-mail record. lt could not, however, support a claim for a second award of penalty independent ofthe award related to thee-mail record; . 'rmissron courmf snrsaton count . - 2000 Lakeridge Dr. S.W. Court's Opinion re Public Records Act Penalty .- 2 O15'mPi"= WA 93502 . i I I . I I Dr. Witt's PRA request of November 8, 2006, requested Ms. Big A Eagle's computer in three categories: Correspondence, internet history, and e-mails. The departnientfs response to the PRA request, dated November I5 2006, coniinns the depart1nent's interpretation of Dr. Witt's request, and that interpretation has never been challenged. I find that the three categories of records were saved on l\/ls. Big Bagle"s computer different 'types of computer . tiles stored in different parts (directories) ofthe computer hard drive. Of the three, only the e-mails remain at issue. In the circumstance 'presented here the PRA and appellate cases addressing this issue permit a trial court discretion in determining whether; each e~1nail (or e-mail string) is a separate public record or whether the eanails as a groupshould be considered a single public record. The choice is governedfby a number of factors. Here I conclude for purposes of determining I penalty that there is a single record comprisedof all 243 e-mail strings. The conclusion is based on my idndings regarding the t`oll'owing factors: - 0 'All eemails were from a single author to a single recipient. -, A Although many of the e-mails encompassed several ects or were strings developed from . . . . initial e-mails coveringseveral subjects, those parts claimed exempt and challenged here all addressed a single general category of information - the personal relationship between author and recipientWithholding ofthe challengedredactions was based on a single statutory exemption? The court's basis for Ending the c1aim_oi` exemption Wrongful was uniform across all e~ A mails wrongfully Witliheld_5 . Based on these Endings, Ihconclude that the department Withheld one public record encompassing all e?mails. - Having concluded that one public record .was wrongfully Withheld, I next address the _number of days it was Withheld, for purposes of assessing the penalty. iind that it took . - _rr fi There was thousands of additional redactions based on different exemptions; but these _were not challenged. 5 The basis can be characterized as a departure from the Tiberino decision. The public interest is the amount of time and effort a public employee was devoting to a personal relationship embedded within apparently appropriate communication with another public employee. COUNTY surnnron Conair - Lnesdge nf. sw. Court's Opinion re Public Records Act Penalty - 3 93502 . . 66" 66 approximately two weeks to retrieve the e-mails stored on Ms. Big Eagle's computer. Following that retrieval, I find that the department took a Substantial period of time to review the e-mails for exemptions and to redact material exempt under the PRA. I tind that given the nature of Ms. Big Eagle's job, aa e~mails associated with her duties necessarily entailed signiticant parts exempt from production by a number of recognized exemptions' in addition to RCW I tind that many ofthe e-mails constituted e-mail strings with many levels of response that refer to earlier parts ofthe string. I rind that all 4,680 e-mails produced by the department contained at least one claim of exemption from six different exemption statutes. In nearly every instance, the passage containing the claimed exemption was redacted, _and the e-mail was produced as redacted. I-find that after received the redacted e-mails and reviewed the claims' of exemption, she challenged only the claims of exemption, comprising 243 e-mails. The claims of - 'exemption for the other 4,437 e-mails comprising 90 percent of the total were not challenged. Aipenalty authorized by RCW 42.5 is triggered by a wrongful denial ofthe right to inspect or copy the requested public record.'A finding tixing the date when the wrongful denial occurred is important for two reasons. First, the calculation of the number of days toiwhich a per diem penalty applies is measured from the denial. As provided 42.56.510 and an agency is permitted a reasonable time to respond' to- a PRA request. Thus it is that provides a per diem penalty for each day thatthe right of inspection or copying. was wrongfully denied, not each day that a request was pending. Soto comply with the plain meaning of a court must determinethe date when the denial occurred andcalculate days of penalty from that date. At closing, counsel for Witt identitied"9ll penalty days, but that tigure is calculated back to the date ofthe request, not the date of denial. The statute, does not identify the date of the reduest as the date for calculating the penalty, and no appellate decision has used that date. Two appellate decisions, Yotisoujian I 'and Koenig v. City of Des Moines, have held that a court may not reduce the number of days required for the penalty assessment, and both ,decisions identied the date of denial as part of the equation. . - 'rnUns'roN counrv cocnr - 2000 Lakeridgc Dr. Court's Opinion re Public Records Act Penalty - 4 I 985037 - PM Dr. Witt argues here that the date when the improperly redacted records were produced for her was unreasonably delayed. A court may consider that contention, but I conclude that the only consideration would be as an aggravating 'factor in fixing the amount of the per diem penalty, not increasing the number of days inthe forrnulapfor calculating the total penalty. Thus the second reason to fix the date of denial is to determine _if that date was so unreasonably delayed that the per diem be increased. i - I find that the date of deniallwas July 23, 2007. On that _date the deparment had completed its claim of exemptions and was prepared to produce non~ei?empt records. However, the department did not immediately communicate its decision to Dr. Witt because of the prospect of Ms.- Big Eagle's injunctionaotion; nevertheless, the' departments decision Was made on or about July 23, 2007. There are 655 days between July 23, 2007, and May 8, 2009. ll conclude that 655'days is the correct number to use in calculating the penalty. provided in ?.550(4) . Yousoujiarz II identities the consideration a trial court- should pndertalce to determine an appropriate per diem. penalty. There are four broad considerations - good faith had faith, economic loss, intransigence, and deterrence followed by 16 specific factors.6 have considered each and make finding on thelapplicable ones. . The facts here are not so compelling that they require a iinding of good faith, had faith, or reere of einer good or had faith. A feeding. of bed faith is not tc impose penalty, end Ending' of good faith would not insulate the department from a penalty. Here the department's 'careful consideration ofthe privacy issue and the scope ofthe Tiberirzo 'decision suggests a good. faith approach; but the delay in responding and the deference granted to Ms. Big Eagle suggests bad faith( Neither View is sufficient to support a finding. I Economic loss to Dr. Witt is a relevant consideration urged' by her counsel. However, the loss is tied to the settlement she made in her tort case and is highly speculative. Furthermore, the -departments public records officers all testified they did not know about Dr. Witt's .tort case when responding to the PRA request."Dr. 'Witt responds to this contention only with skepticism, not . 5 The four broad considerations, discusse_d at greater length in Yousoujian II, are included inthe 16 listed factors. 5 . THURSTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT - 2000 Lakeridge Dr. S.W. Court's Opinion re Public Records Act Penalty - 5 0 Fax: (36 5 - RR-2011-00450 impeaching evidence. Finally, consideration of economic loss in this case (if proved and if foreseeable) raises an important issue about therelaticnship between litigation discovery and PRA requests. It isclear that many litigators view the PRA as a less 'expensive alternative to discovery in litigation. Nevertheless, parties using the as a substitutefcr discovery should recognize that they are different tools created for different purposes. PRA penalty is not a tool for enforcing. litigation discovery transgressions. - A Deterrence is an additional goal to be considered here. The lawdoes not contemplate an agency actively protecting the interest of an affected third person, except by either notifying that person porsuant tc RCW by asserting an exemption available to the agency. Here the department went beyond simple notification to Ms. Big Eagle. The facts establish that this PRA -request, receivedtby the department on November 9, held for response until the, - department had completed the entirety of its review and then permitted Ms. Big Eagle to complete her review on her schedule. More than nine months intervened, during which no records were - produced for Dr. Witt. This PRA request could have and should have been the subject of an installment disclosure? Allcf the records were gathered in about two weeks; the delay in response' was occasioned by a very substantial exernptionand redaction process,'one'that Judge Hicks found prima facie reasonable. Nevertheless, that process was very linear. The e-mails were organized by date, and the subject matter in the e-mails tracked a dependency case (and personal relationship). that was also very linear. Thereis not smoking gun quality evidence showing a conspiracy between the department and Ms. Big Eagle, butthe evidence does compel an inference that the department unreasonably delayed response in order Ms. Big Eagle. ln doing so it elevated the interest ofits' employee over the interest of a citizen. The PRA does not permit that. Nc statute or appellate decision specifically directs an agency in this regard, _sc in determining an appropriate . penalty, any enhancement for this failure is better treated as a deterrence rather than retribution. i 7 The record here does not include details ofthe departn1ent's installment response history' in PRA cases. However, this court has considered such of volume of PRA cases involving state agencies that I can notice that by 2007 most state agencies, including the department, were responding to large volume PRA requests using installments, I . T1-mnsron cocnrv suramon count" . 2000 Lakeridge Dr. - - - Olympia., WA 93502 Court Opinron re Pubhc Records Act Penalty 6 (360) 7696560 - . - Fax: (3602 - RR-2011-00450 Accordingly I have considered this an enhancement, but almodest enhancement designed to call attention to the agency's duty and make sure it will not happen again. I Ofthe specific mitigation factors identified in Yousoufian II, numbers 4 and 5 are 'most applicable. The department clearly had adequately trained and supervised personnel responding. They enlisted supervisors and legal counsel in consideration of the Tiberino decision. Their' explanation of their claim for exemption Was -reasonableeven if ultimately not convincing. 'Ihere are few -significant aggravating factors present in this case. Certainly, the time spent preparing the departmentfs response was considerable and should havebeen done by installments. .Butbalanced against this 'was the fact that 'there were 4,680 e-mails with one or more of six different exemptions in every eimail. Of those all but a small fraction were produced with redactions; and ultimately only 423 were challenged' and Iudge Hicks found the time tolrespond prima facie reasonable, as a preliminary matter. Nothing in this record convinces me that the departments response was so unreasonable as to require a substantial aggravating I enhancement( 1 1 in .Drl Witt contends that the departmenfs failure to actively Big Eagle's restraining order and to actively monitor her compliance with the bonding requirement of that order is an aggravating factor compelling an enhanced penalty. I disagree; I find that the departiment's _n counsel appeared in court and resisted the restraint. I conclude that the departments responsibility here is limited to that role. It is the obligation ofthe party seeking restraint protection to give notice _to the requestor; it is notthe responsibility' of the agency. I 'rind that Dr. Witt had notice of the Lewis County action and appeared there by counsel. I conclude that a requestor with notice has the primary responsibility to monitor compliance by the protected party with bonding 'conditions in a restraint order. The PRA does not shift that responsibility to the agency. Finally I considered the language of Yotisoujiczn II aggravation factor number (I), 'fa delayed response, especially in circumstancesmalcing time ofthe essence". The mgument that time was of the essence here is that Dr. Witt's decision to substitute the PRA_process for 'litigation discovery- . THURSTON COUNTY COURT 2000 Lakenidge Dr. S.W. - - - Olympia, WA 93502 Court Opinion re Public Records Act Penalty 7 (360) 7096560 . rec (ssoamwao PRR-2011-00450 prejudiced her prospects in litigation and therefore warrants anenhanced penalty. I disagree. I 'conclude that this factor doeslnot contemplate that result. - I Considering the iindings and conclusions discussed above, I conclude. that a per diem penalty of $l`5 is reasonable and warranted. There is one public record, 655 days, and a $15 per diem penalty. The total penalty is $9,825. Dr.. Witt is` also entitled to recover her costs and attorney fees. I adjudge lierto be the 'prevailing party and so assign her priinary responsibility for preparation of concluding court documents. I will direct that court personnel calendar this matter - for presentation on May 20, 2011, onthe regular Friday motion calendar. I Date: 'April 13Thomas McPhee, Judge . . THURSTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT - i 2000 Lakeridge Dr. S.W. Court's Opinion re Public Records Act Penalty 8 Fax: (360) PRR-2011-00450 TPS APR EQ 211:19 f' 650% Awe sw 22 209 Qvafy .Y -:$55SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON H4 AND FOR PIERCE COUNTY AMBER WRIGHT, Plaintifil Na os-2-09906-2 v. - NOTICE ANI) ORDER OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL STATE OF WASHINGTON, usiis, PURSUANT TO own, RULE [CIerk's Action Required] i I Defendant. 5 COMES NOW, plaintiff Amber Wright, by and through her counsel of record and provides her Notice and Order of Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to Civil Rule THIS MATTER having come before the Court on Plaintiffs Noiice aud Order of 'Voluntary Dismissal Pursuant to Civil Rule if is hereby ORDERED that the above- oaptioned lawsuit is DISMISSED without prejudice, Ordered this of April, 2009. The Honorable Thomas Larkin NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL PURSUANT TO CR 1 . Means anim - 00303241 SOBGL SHAPIRO FIFIH AVENUE. SUITE 2900 SEAYIIE. . iam 1 I A PRR-201 -00450 _3 _l Presented HAGEN BERMAN SOB SHAPIRO LLP gif' 7/ By jr Davi ,Mood Marti ean,(_ A Attome fo intiffs NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMIS SAL PURSUANT To ca - 2 299195 va . . 4 13 HAGENSBERMAN soaonsn/wnaonlr nan Avenue. some z?oo - sums. 98101 meruowe (ans) - PRR-2011-00450 ogg; COURT "Ov 3 'lim Piewemmw i BY DEPUTY SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON IN AND FORVPIERCE COUNTY AMBER WRIGHT, Plaintiff, No. 10-2~081 1.4-9 V. <24 . - JUDGMENT AGAINST DSHS STATE OF WASHINGTON, DSHS A With Findings of Fact Defendant. Conclusions of Law H4 CLERBPS ACTION REOUIRED JUDGMENT SUMMARY (RCW 4.64.030) 1. Judgment Creditor: Amber Wright 2. Judgment Creditors Attorneys: David P. Moody Marty McLean Carter W. I-liek 3. Judgment Debtor: State of Washington, DSHS 4. Total Judgment Amount: A 5. Pre-judgment Interest: $0 6. I Post-judgment Interest: I $0 7. Taxable Costs and Attorneys' fees: Included in Total Judgment Amount Total: $649,896.87 JUDGMENT AGAINST DSHS -1 m. (206) azz-7292 FAX (zoo) 623-0594 00303243 486076 V1 SF-02074 A PRR-2011 -00450 Active Role Taken By Court There was a bench trial on August 31 and September 1, 2011. Accordingly, this Court served as the trier of fact and is familiar with the evidence, the law, the circumstances of this case, and the dedication, skill and reputation of the attorneys. Before signing this order, the Court carefully considered the briefing of the parties, the law, and heard. oral argument from counsel. Finally, this Court took an active role indetermining the reasonableness of the award for attorneys' fees, costs and penalties imposed. i Findings of Fact The Court 'finds that there was an obstruction of justice, that the obstruction is clear, and that it insults the citizens for a government entity to proceed as DSHS proceeded in this matter, and therefore the Court finds that penalties of $100/day are appropriate. The penalties equal - The Court finds that plaintiffs attorneys' fees are reasonable and necessary because: i. There were no duplicated efforts; ii. There was a significant amount of time and labor required due to the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal services properly; The attorneys'1fees charged are .customary and reasonable in the locality for similar legal services; A iv, The results obtained are exceptional; . v. The nature and length of the professional relationship 'between plaintiff and her attorneys was significant and long-standing; JUDGMENT AGAINST DSI-IS - 2 - 161 ?awi (206) 623-7292 FAX (2 05) 823-0594 003032-13 486076 V1 SF-02075 PRR-2011-00450 vi. Plaintift" attorneys are experienced, have a particularly strong reputation for successfully prosecuting claims against including the largest public records settlement against DSHS in state history; and vii. The fee Was contingent in nature, making this an all~or-nothing proposition for plaintiff' attorneys. The Court further iinds that a Ioadstar multiplier of 2X is warranted given the reputation and skill of plaintiffs attorneys, the contingent nature of this litigation, the result obtained for plaintiff, and the obstacles surinounted due to obstruction in obtaining these public records. Attorneys' fees, including a multiplier of Zx, equal $346,000.00 The Court finds that plaintiffs litigation costs are reasonable and necessary. The costs equal $16,096.87 Conclusions of Law l. Judgment shall be taken against Defendant State of Washington, DSHS, inthe total amount of $649,896.81 which breaks down as follows; a. $287,800.00 for statutory penalties; b. $346,000.00 for attorneys' fees; o. $16,096.87 for litigation costs. 2. The total judgment of $649,896.87 shall be deposited by Defendant State of Washington, DSHS, into the Registry ofthe Pierce County Superior Court no later than five business days aner the date of entry and tiling of this judgment; 3. Upon presentation of identification, the Pierce County Superior Court Clerk is directed to release the funds to plaintiffs counsel-, David P. Moody of I-lagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP ("David P. Moody, Attorney, in trust for Amber Wright"); and JUDGMENT AGAINST DSI-IS - 3 H/reams BERMAN .- . - 1918 Eicum Avenue. Serra 3300 SEATRE. WA 98101 (208) 523-7292* PM (2:15) 003032-13 486076 Vl SF-02076 PRR-2011-00450 4. Upon receipt of $649,896.81 the Court Clerk shall enter satisfaction ofthe "1 judgment against De State of Washington, DSHS. I _7 Ordered this "day 2011. 4 A iw! if .5 T11 onorable 'ederi?k Es eming Presented by: "Leg 1 HAGENS BERMAN Sonor LLP gg* QOURT Attorneys for Plaintw" 0 By (ff . David mdy, WSBA No. 22853 Martin eLean, WSBA No. 33269 TACON as Mnsanva Co-Counselfor Plaifitqf F, . f/ if ,ff daaer W. Hier, WSBA No. 36721 i fi' 7? gg" /1/7 are /an c/fdifn m/f@f9 7 07? H1149 yr JUDGMENT AGAINST DS1-IS - 4 . We .- HAGENS assinais . O. an- 1918 003032-13 486076 V1 EEGHTH Avenue. Suas 3390 Sums, WA 96101 (206) 623-7292 FAX (208) 823-0584 SF-02077 PRR-2011-00450 The Honorable Douglas McBroom Heating Date: March 22, 2007 WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT STATE OF KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT PROFESSIONAL NETWORK, INC., a NO, 06-2-16057>>6 SEA Washington corporation, ORDER ON MOTION FOR FURTHER Plaintifii RELEP PURSUANT To PUBLIC I DISCLOSURE ACT VS. DEPARTMENT OF - SOCIAL and HEALTH SERVICES, Defendant. THIS MATTER having come regularly before the Court for determination on March 6, 2007, on the Plaintiff Professional Network, Incfs Renewed Motion for Further Relief Pursuant to Public Disclosure Act, the Court having comidered the motion; the Declaration of David Hasbrook in Support of Renewed Motion for Further Relief Pursuant to Public Disclosure Act, the Declaration of Sean Monahan in Support of Renewed Motion for Further Relief Pursuant to Public Disclosure Act, the October 5, 2006 Declaration of Randy Bamard in -Support of Motion for Further Relief Pursuant to Public Disclosure Act, the Response to Motion for Further Relief submitted by the Defendant, the Department of Social and Health Services the Declarations of John C1ark,`Jeanne McShane, Paula Williams (supplemental declaration), Charlie Johnson, Sandy Hintz, Yvonne Fred, and Julie Reichert submitted by Defendant, and the Plaintiffs Reply in Support of Renewed Motion for ORDER ON MOTION POR FURTHER 1 P0 DISCLOSURE ACT alyssa wa 98504-0124 (360) 586-6565 SF-02078 PRR-2011 00450 Further Relief Pursuant to Public Disclosurelritct, and being fully advised in the premises, now, therefore, the Court FINDS THAT: A. The Defendant, DSI-IS has violated the Washington Public Disclosure Act, new 42.56.550 by withholding item public inspection and copying 393 pages of non~exempt public records requested by Plaintiff in two separate PDA requests respectively dated May 12, 2005, and Iuly 8, 2005 until disclosed by Defendant to Plaintiff on November 15, 2006; B. ]'La.rzguage Srricken] C. The Plaintifli PNI, has incuu-ed reasonable attorney fees from October 27,2006 through March 6, 2007, for the services ofllaudy Barnard of $980.50 (based on 3.7 hours at $265 an hour) and David Hasbrook of 10,632.00 (based on 44.3 hours at $240 an hour including two hours for the hearing on March 6, 2007), plus costs of $1 1.00, for total costs including reasonable attorney fees of $i 1,623.50 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJ UDGED AND DECREED that; I. DSHS shall pay an additional civil penalty pursuant to RCW 42.56.550(4) to PNI of $4,600 (based upon $50 per day for the period noni August 15, 2006 through and including November 14, 2006); 2. PNi's request for additional daily civil penalty to the $30 a day previously ordered by the Court for the period prior to August 15, 2006 pursuant to the PDA is denied; 3. DSI-IS shall pay to PNI its costs including reasonable attorney fees pursuant to RCW 42.56.550(4) of $1 4. PNI's request for attorney fees that it incurred prior to filing this action and taken under advisement in the Courts November 6, .2006 Order is denied. 5. The Court will conduct an in camera review to determine' the applicability of theattorneywlient privilege to each ofthe 68 records submitted by DSI-IS to the Court that clairns as exempt 'dom the PDA as subject to a statutory attorney~client privilege and onoaa on Metros ron FURTHER 2 sauna aunsuam ro PUBLIC PC, oisctosuna Aer c1yma>>.wa Qssofamt (360) 536-6565 SF-02079 PRR-2011-00450 3 :r me .- Bar-._ - i which are identitied on the DSHS'P1ivileged Documents Lo dated January 29, 2007, a copy of which is attached to this order. 6, The Court takes under advisement the issue of whether additional searching ofany Department computer server is required. It has not yet been determined whether DSHS has reasofzabzfv searched all "coozptaer servers" that arte reasonably capable ofbeing searched for responsive records. Thus, DSHS is to report back to the Court and PNI regarding which "com_pm'er servers" have been searched. ifazzy, and what mechanisms and costs are associated with searching any other servers" for Children 's Headquarters and Region 48 - - 7. The Court takes under adyisement PNI's request for civil penalty pursuant to the PDA as to any public records disclosed as a result ofthe Courts in camera review described in paragraph above or any subsequent disclosure of records that may result Hom a search of any or all computer servers at its central headquenters offices irt Thorsten County; Washington and/or et its Region 4 offices in County, Weshingtoo. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 'doe Defendant, DSI-IS, shall deliver the payments set forth above to counsel for Plaintiff within tea (10) days of the date ot" receipt of this Order. Plaintiff is not prejudiced tc seek additional awards for fees or pursuant to appliceble law. A DATED this day of March, 2007. LTUDGE DOUGLAS MGBROOM Presented Bye Roesst M. MCIQENNA Attorney General Jo o_ CLARK, WSBA #28537 A sistant Attorney General Attorneys for Defendant ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WAS HENGTON- . osoes ON MOTION Foe Fos:rH:sn_ 3 RELIEF PURSUANT to PUBLIC DISCLOSURE ACT Olympia. WA 93504-0124 i SF-02080 PRR-2011-00450 menu.; _wsu 910 S7-1 El 31 Q-r pm 3uu<-me fl DLV) 01101 lgaq; 3 S8 I meqg rem SOZZ S521 BX Nd mladn neue; pas $0 Mama oqueg 1: Bffaolq Home :sm pasmadn was B111 S0 1' fiorrefq poo 9.1, 01 JJ rl SIN pasnuedn ISIA suoue; SG lv asxoq aumq 1V BON 91133530 ll unaoyq VII URM adn pasuu SIA 01191 17 5 A paswadns IN H93 (suv) HHQON ((SLV) . I /If Hem-g - . 1- I 93 9139139 I - - - . pasyuadns I A . (DLV S3 1 /1 Hem-3 STI f(oJQv [azqova 1 (1 grim; 'qs f( 2111 S21 f( . IQ fl-'FH 5 HS A (suvE-U9 5SUHT I f!'I . sg es; 5 ue fuwfl I 0 51 URI 5 me IQQE 9 qw; El?uen 11 fa; 's JJ ffilv) I 'age 1_ - sum, gs; I A ;lIap_03}[ laptlag qua auf 1 'zmq ;aa_q11g saig .53 JO FIC) WWE EIT 2119051 MBU 3111! 3 UBI 9d ao; LI SLV U-IUC) 9 19.1 I IW Sl? 193 BJ, essqapq Memo (ea 3 11 num; 'uagv (5 11% uualf; 'Is saw Htnoql Ks 9 l. 09 SWG 51? Xmasryq qw sq a <3 ?19 ?51 TGIIEJSE 1119 3.1% 951 Im Hang smug as pnfo req U2 oo 3, 93 I-505 am. 5 Rf cnS'eUQ. rutimg: cr? F30 fp 223 can \lf'-il in . SF-02081 PRR-2011-00450 i 3 - "mm: Hon wg QEUQ Ogg 29 gh; gi Hmimmg 2_9 Om 20 Om Hwang Mata" U98 mmag) _wa m?gimwm $mE&gm m?pm Q5 Ngom 23? 5 QNHQ Hg ?gmna mama QUE QNEM mg 22:9 Hg?mfm *Pam i wg mgogmmg im* Macaw Q55 Qwam Zag" mw?miw KWH iwwmmoum Ogg EWBM Egg _wg 235 WMQEMW QHQV "Pam 1 magmm Ogg NRBM 2g=W Hgim "Pam ma gm mag; wgma Ogg _msg Nm Zag _Hgn Q1 m?pmm GEF Ngxom Zan" Nga* nm PHQ N/"mg dum? Ompono ng i wg mgQim& NSOM gg ww nw 23:3 Hgigh bg A _ga _B/mum NQOQQ migm _Ogg mnmuwmu mamma; QHQV HHQQOE APHQY Hjogadg HOB wgamgm Huzmwm mga" gg Q33 Wagga I mg wg mm_mm_? Hlowwp Wag" gw _Wag Ogg Q3 Hog MBEWE Hummg E035 M350 QW S0365 wuqg Wnab WWQEW Himogm gwoqmw MN an MW E6 Egmmg ga 3; gg gg# 536% SF-02082 PRR-2011-00450 3 go 9225 P1051 912 peuenag ;ng;g!g 5 il* 2--3 9 sameu Jraq'Zill- UZ S02 EI EUIDZVU UI $6 11093 QD 9 U18 gif EQM summon mg SQUSS ore; CJ EZ VZ EZ B111 90/ 01133 Hoag mol VS xapurn D3 :img 4 sermon N5 SQHS Q9 1:2 1 II.`i01l2 AQ slap G1 an U10 20 sanssg Ieiaq mg Aq pastel SQIISSI ?233 S3 UQ $3 5 oenuoo IN subs 'cr 3 ra Aalucme WH 3119 umfi mol US Il GSSH 9 V) '-883 -fhgg 3 G) I3 ES s?INc[ Xa ureqge S0 Huang gm! V) 'umraqo FEI IA SSM 32d .reussaj/q sans $5 ra '15 2 We 109_ql`lS [Pohl ff}.I.V na ra; faurgg 'HQS. 1 IQ 1 . at EsuIe_ ,1 fsmugpm - ISS f(f> A "ao 2(5) V) pa uaq 1_ It qelqs bfmuqogm nemslg 11011931 I2 I 1 a [0 pq UIJFTDI5 01593 J.) UH If qd:-ng . ?pgoef 95- moi UZ mem Um QWH1 (1-JLV) =Il@0l\I Ie Jade; Hqag qrIa1gf1?Q;sQMe; rreqn I - Al Silo . noni 5 I 3;ass'sH uqqfieug fig; epg) . epiaef Emnolg fsxapumzg mc- (glv) big - 3 ,Iapuag nag mar H5 Sn' a?SF-02083 PRR-2011-00450 17 95% 8,u-.rgaqigm 05 uosq WN d111If\I 11 mE'7iO (SLV) B6 SSBH enaofq 9 pong ?slomquoo mg 2113 VZ S0 3.1003 Uaqdegg 3% Ds.-fn fs 285 gp-'Q I sxoznuoo il (SLV) 1515595 UNI ESQ0123. Ol 93111 UI1 1913 '$1003 Qggma 5 F11 ??55 ggi,- a*E sg goermoa mg 911203313 I2 ns hr: UMIOTHUIEI .LV "ml 918 H0193 'Ti ci 2? 56% ;0 saTecAa; pumag mo; P-1 "Wa 5 2 H: Smeg uma Efiq 'f ?0 5 [9 eg gf 'om' pd: gftro;qag[ fam 3m far fl. swam; 21119 SAI dm 1? one fu sqgegf fa;[ SQLV) s?u1[A?x N5 GSSEH I S19 'smug I U1 3 5 di-HS A U10l UFEUIC) SJNL H1127 ixafzi Sq ues - rg Haus s_ isa I .re ion? pg fsumq uoqfl ta{[auN 5 ms aqda; amy); slope WML 5U01I9 spell fuaq f1a[/Ll mm iq esng 3 fisussayfq sp; Esarrof .Ia MEI 559139 uagvgaa puag azmq an a?z? "rm mgmi IFJ il* SF-02084 PRR-2011-00450 KL F'miH$& bow Eg 4 QEHHQ Ogg 29 gb; gi Zwgma 2? as 2? aw A 1 wig UDF H560 mg_U_2' mg" _Fa ww Hu; OOUQNGQ vga gg? 29w=m wmigmm QHQW Moog ggownw Onan" Egg My EAM I m?umm gg moon mgapmh mama $_M_mwW GQ QH2 mga" HVQMOEN QOEWM 5; _Few Hvmam Kr EAM Smqmog gg N\Nm_6m 20% Hggmumm Egg mga no Himgg Qwammv Ogwmgu Egg ?mmguw "Og Uomggumgw GQ Emowmw SOME ga# Eg wg Ogqmow WEEM _gn m$_H5= mamma mann MEEM mg gm mama" MWHQ 235 Hg; nw HVZH ooagg A Wag QWE APHQV QNQEQ wpowggu Egg" Hg" gag mkam DEQ wagon mg_?u Emgn MVHQ MVZM ogqgn Q0 mtg; HWEEQ mg rg mamma bm; mg; E505 WEMOEW QOMW m_ZQGE Hg# HM ga GOHEMOH A _Mag miami Ogg wb Q3 mg EE mga wisp ii ME iggs Na A353 "Wham G53 wx "Em gg mg _gg mvuagn _Pan __W_H2_gm ig gg?gm Hmm# _Egg omw SF-02085 PRR-2011-00450 9 030g - ,go 3 ap; 0.112 Imauaf) 11112; S'-IUQM .HG EII S8111 sanss 012111100 DM songs uotm sm UM H9113 5 0123 WM Sanss 1101123 sm Irreqg mm 1_1 9017 (slv oenuoo mg ?017 wma UTFLIO mm troag ore() <1 02.0000 9118 UWFEO WH /5 :mom 9 posugj 2 F-T1 SLV) 9 sense: 100.0000 mg meqg S0 1195 UH UNI UTIOI ESQCI In TIPJZ Sams 02111100 mg 0? AIL (suv) 0_1 papmml 31S lv IIGII 1717 SGTISS IJRIIHOS UWT-I3 915' 13' 119 WH UNI *P-mf99(I Ifmd *cv @ww f?mf ueueqong apgmaf . . - 1:39 Lv) - s3ugps=m}1 05005; fueueqong appz; I H911 918 'Lt' sxapun S0101 0J,p0 s3u'gMu}I unaolq frrerreqong appz; I fa 0 213 0 1011235 1; S9011 oloympq pong - 01 fnetmq . aploq 50310 zggosggf 52101105 [0123 (apgoag .Iapuag auf 'nog saggfi x?SF-ozose PRR-2011-00450 .-. . "5 3 HvHwi__wmn__ Ham II gm Gang 2? anim# mg? _aa gamma 2? _Um 2? af Hvmna Q5 Ugw Fa :g wmogg moggmom my QOHWQ wg" Eggom mga mag Ogqmod I Hug" my Nw mag; QFHQ Ogg mag! _n _h my I HVZH QOH Ming maM_5__ mamma QQ M3050 may wg 4 gg mbm?m Abamw Egan WWSEMM Apagw QQ Ogop HQGSOE zmmauw munmmumwmwi Wo 4 A HFOE0 wg mm mg Ugmm Q55 QEBM Egmumm APHQ gg A QM mmE_m_ "god A QQ Gag Egg dgowgawn mgE;_H mg mg m_ A migmm gm? "Gwen Egg A>_Hmv_ MH ig ME miamm wwrou Omg# 4 GQ sg; ww wg mmg??Hw?G mrgaw Ogg ?5 Q3 Oowmgw 030% HWUNHOU ?mmgm mg wg pa Oagg Ogg *Wagga ragga? gm *gamma ga ig QHQ ga* Haag Hamm (R) SF-02087 PRR-2011-00450 my wma Uoggaam WEN E5 Ogg 29 g_N_Hgm__N_m mg? Hua_Ea SEN _gd googm gg EA m?mm Q55 Eg" $63 mugs gnupg gay wg my m?pg nga Q3 UgE_m Eg AEPHQW QU 4% SHENQM 32% gg E5 im__?mOB Maw? _ig wg Uggm "pea Enos QOH Uni _Pam magma mga Eggmm Egg H5 _gm mg? Magma Hanimmn _mg Q55 mb MEM UpE_g_ mga" AEENEM HVZH ooguma vga Ogg HGH mamma gag" GQ GROW MEM mga #gm gomsog 8 Dm :hm?mv QOH mmnomm m&0E_g 3933 zo _ugamwm mm Zen? WNQEQ 0gE&_ m__Bm~H O55 Qwmqa _Fw APHQM QQ wuqod gag >nE__H_g_m agE$_H_ WH Jig QHQV HEEQ MW Om SF-02088 PRR-2011-00450 12. IO CD viThe Honorable Douglas D. McBroom Hearing Date: September 1, 2006 Attorneys for Plaintiff IN THE suPEelon couer or= THE STATE oi= WASHENGTON in Amo Foe THE COUNTY oi= Kina PROFESSIONAL NETWORK, INC., a Washington corporation, NO. 06-2-10057-6 SEA Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION FOR vs. RELIEF PUFISUANT TO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE ACT WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL and HEALTH SERVICES, I Defendant. THIS MATTER having come regularly before the undersigned Judge of the above-entitled Court for hearing on September 1, 2006, the Plaintiff corporation, Professional Network, Inc. appearing in person by its officers, Sean Monahan and Priscilla Coy-Monahan, and by its counsel, David T. I-Iasbrock of O'Shea Barnard Martin, P.S., and the Defendant appearing by counsel, John D. Clark, Assistant Attorney General, the Court having considered the Plaintiffs Motion for Fieliet Pursuant to Public Disclosure Act, the Declaration of David l~lasbrool< in Support of Motion for Pursuant to Public Disclosure Act, the Declaration of Sean Monahan in Support of Motion for Ftelief Pursuant tc Public Disclosure Act, the May 26, 2006 Declaration of ORDER ou Motion Foe RELIEF f,SfE'? PURSUANT TO Pusuc RECORDS ACT -1 1500 Skyitne 'Ibwer 9505/090106 10900 NE Fuurtlx Street Bellevue, WA Phone: (425) 464-4800 Fax: (425)-151i-657 SF-02089 PRR 2011 00450 Barbara McPherson (DSHS), the Complaint with attached exhibits, the following documents submitted by the Defendant: Response to Motion for Relief Pursuant to Public Disclosure Act, and the Declarations of Barbara McPherson dated May 25, 2006, and August 1, 2006, respectively, the Reply ln Support of P|alntiff's it/lotion, and arguments of counsel presented at the hearing, and being fully advised in the premises, now, therefore, the Court finds that the Defendant, Washington Department of Social and Health Services has violated the Washington Public Dlsciosure Act, RCW 42.56.550 ublic inspection and copying of non-exempt public records requested by Plaintiff In two separate PDA requests respectively dated' lt/lay 12, 2005, and July 8, 2005 through the date of this order. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DEOREED that DSHS Shall pay a civil penalty pursuant to RCW 42.56.500(4) to of $3 Qwper day for the May 12 2005 PDA request for a total . e' ius an sa ern e-eaela-et~ IT iS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendant, DSHS, shall pay to the Plaintiff, PNI its costs including reasonable attorney fees pursuant to RCW 42.56.550(4) in an Bauman A Service Corpurution ORDER ON MOTION FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RECORDS ACT ~2 1500 Skyline Tower 10906 NE Fourth Street WP E00 44 9505/0901 O6 Bellevue. 9 4-G8 Ph SF-02090 PRR-2011 pete faacos 'amount to be etipuieted bythe parties or determined upon submission ofthe of Pieintitfs counsel and determination by the Court. DONE IN OPEN COURT THIS day of 2006. JUDGE Presented by: - BAFINARD MAFITIN, I By: Devi T. Ha brook Attorneys for Defendant NO. 28140 7W I .iff-Jf@4 EP 537 OFIDEFI ON MOTION FOFI RELIEF PURSUANT TO PUBLIC FIECOFIDS ACT -3 9505/0901 O6 MAm'1t~r A Corporation 1500 Skyline Tower 10900 NE Fourth Street Belxuvee, 98004-5844 Phonnt (425) 454-4800 Fax:t425I-1511-B575 SF-02091 PRR-2011-00450 FORM ;;jf STATE OF wasunmow to FILWG C0DE A19-ZA 5 1 VOUCHER DISTRIBUTION 1000 Rev 412009 VENDOR NMIEANDADDRESS A to A A I ABC Legal Services 633 Yesler Way AGENCY NAME AND LOCATION Seattle, WA 98104 Complex Litigation Division 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, VVA 98104-35188 PAYMENT TYPE VENDOR N0 (FED m, soc SEC, or RECEIVED BY I DATE RECEIVED USE SPACE A T0 DEVELOP OR EXPLAIN THE GOODS OR SERVICES STAPLE X: PACKING SIJPS ON BACK Please see attached i11voice(s) in the amount of: 105.95 (Attach packing Slip (S) applicable) INV #20278590 McClea1y $14.95 IN #20278328 MCCICHIY $35.00 INV #20281441 Clark $20.00 INV #20281655 Clark $22.50 INV #20278995 Clark $13.50 McC1eary #10326431; CACode 3 50; AllocS29() Clark #1045 8473; 10-2-0269753 CACode 360; Alloc 2092 . . Prepared Phone Number Agency Agroval - Print name Si Date A rles Roche 206-587-5094 Lani Briem -5'5 '70 Master Index SF-02092 PRR-2011-00450 1 633 Yesler Way Seattle, WA 98104 abclogalnom Phone: 206 4677000 Fax: 206 6259247 Fed Tax 91-1153514 MESSENGER INVOICE Firm: Attorney General - Comol?x Litigation Dv .1 1 ORPER #5 29278590 2 800 Ave, #2000 1 I I I 20278 590 7 A260001 #1 4`f22 February 22, 2010 Callefl AGNES ROCHE CLIENT 10326431 Case: McCIeary v- State Cause Number: U7-2-02323-2 SEA Order Date: February 22, 2010 3-45 PM Documents: Respondenfs Objections re: Proposed Final Judgment SERVICE DESCRIPTION with King County Superior Court 516 3rd Ave., Rm. Seattle on 2-22-10, 2 14-95 $1419 1 QFEB 232010 WSE OK TO By Bill Clark CASE NAME: es CAUSE No. AGO MATTER NO. VENDOR SELECTED BY: AGO 121 PROGRAM CODE: 12001 El TORTS DNISIGN SEATTLE CHECK STATUS ORDER ON-LIN ABCLEGAL.COM SF-02093 PRR-2011-00450 -Qannren 633 Yesler Way Seattle, WA 98104 abclegaleom Phone: 206 4677000 Fax: 206 6259247 Fed Tax 91-1 l53514 SPECIAL DELIVERY IN OICE 5 1 1 2 2 20273323 F3399 "0EQE: p_ 35DATE: Feefuary 24, 2010 CLIENT REF: 10326431 efiit?ee 02 A 2222 2001 if AMOUNT DUE: 35.00 2413. 7 Case: McCIeary State . Cause Number: O7-2-02323-2 SEA I Order Date: February 22, 2010 1.00 PM Documents: Judge's Copies FEB 2020111 q?3@Q e1f1\1EeAL?s OFFICE BQ. TORTS DIVISION SEATTLE SERVICE DESCRIPTION Pickup: Attorney General - Complex Litigation Dv 800 5th Ave, #2000 Seattle Destination: Judge Eriick 401 4th Ave N. 4A Kent . . CHECK STATUS ORDER ON-LINE ABCLEGALCOM SF 02094 PRR-2011-00450 I (R) 4 01611. 3 3 633 Ycsler Way Seattle, WA 98104 abclegateom Phone: 206 46770001 Fax: 206 6259247 Fed Tax 91-1153514 SPECIAL DELIVERY INVOICE Firm: Attorney Genefai - Complex Litigation Dv ORTQER #1 20231441 sm Ave, #zoos Seattle WA- 98104 5; 20281441 ACCOHHY #5 4722 DATE: March 02, 2010 Callefr AGNES CLIENT REF: 10458403 2" 5?7?5?9" AMOUNT DUE: 20.00 Case: clark v. uw Cause Number: 10-2-02697-5 Sea Order Date: February 26, 2010 4.27 PM Documents: env SERVICE DESCRIPTION Pickup: Attorney Generai - Complex Litigation Dv 800 5th Ave, #2000 Seattle Destination: Ailied Law Group LLC 2200 6th Ave, #770 Seattle SERVICE PERFORNIED I I I I Legal Messenger Delivery 600-006 73 046 Prepaid Amt I fe MAR U3 2010 :ago PW) KL.. tw I TOHTS OFHCE SEATTLE CHECK STATUS ORDER ON-LINE ABCLEGALCOM SF-02095 PRR-2011-00450 633 Yesler Way Seattle, WA 98104 abclegalcom Phone: 206 4677000 Fax: 206 6259247 Fed Tax 91-1153514 SPECIAL DELIVERY I VOICE Firm: Attorney General - Complex Litigation Dv ORDER #5 20281655 300 5th Ave, #2000 Seattle WA 98104 Account 4722 Caller: AGNES ROACH Phone: (206) 587-5094 clark v. UW Case: Cause Number: 10-2-02697-5363 March 01, 2010 9.39 AM Order Date: Documents: env DATE: March 02, 2010 CLIENT REF: 10458473 AMOUNT DUE: 22.50 SERVICE DESCRIPTION Pickup: Attorney General - Complex Litigation Dv 800 5th Ave, #2000 Seattle Destination: AG of 4333 Brooklyn Way NE Seattle T0 I A Legal Messenger Delivery 22,56 22456 2250 $22-50 .f A A IUHNEY 1" TORT OFF I Sl? DIVISION *Cb ATTLE CHECK STATUS ORDER ON-LINE ABCLEGALCOM SF-02096 PRR-2011-00450 633 Yesler Way Seattle, WA 98104 abclegalxom Phone: 206 4677000 Fax: 206 6259247 Fed Tax 91-1153514 SPECIAL DELIVERY INVOICE Finn: Attofney General - Complex Litigation Dv 2027899-5 aan 5th-Ave, #zona . Seattle WA 98104 - I J.: 1 fir'-I' 202578995 4722 DATE: February 24, 2010 Callerr AGNES ROCHE CLIENT mea 10458473 Phone: (206) 587-5094 1 Case: Clark UW Cause Number: '10~2~02697-5 SES Order Date: Februaay 23, Documents: envelope' 2 SERVICE DESCRIPTION 4 . 9 Picku p: Attorney General - Complex Litigation Dv 800 Ave, #2000 Seattle Destination: Allied LawlGroup LLC 2200 6th Ave, #770 Seattle SERVICE Legal Messenger Delieelva in al it Sales Tax Total Amount Due TOTAL A A 5 13.50 1 0.00 A 13.5 1d 1; I ?54549 EB Za ZUIU f, Y- lOF;r? EATTLE CHECK STATUS ORDER ON-LINE ABCLEGAECOM SF-02097 PRR-2011-00450 . 0 OF w4?w1~rGfON 1000 0 7" <12-2213iL .2?2 ?fZ . - CourtTrax 15400 SE 30th Place, Suite 202 Bellevue, WA 98007 Complex Litigation Section 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 . A Seattle, WA 98104-188 91-2075792 USE SPACE BELOW AS A WORKSHEET T0 DEVELOP OR GOODS OR SERVICES PURCHASED STAPLE INVOICES PACKING SLIPS ON BACK Please see attached invoice(s) in the amount of 24.70 (Attach packing shin (S) Ay" applicable) Invoice (Sullivan) $17. 96 Invoice l3l (Cla1?k; Entler) A $6.74 0 Sullivan 10460393: Case# ClAgency 045; Alloc: 9000 $17.96 Clark 10458473: 10-2-02697-5 ClAg: 360; Alloc: 8020/2092 $4.50 Entler 10377S88: 08-2-01805-6; ClAg: 310; Alloc: 9000 $2.24 Qepared by; Rhone Eumber Agency Approval - Print name Sigature A nes Roche A LaI1iBriehl 'Ind SF-02098 PRR-2011-00450 53 1.234 -i Wfl-; ff- - 0 ii 5 rf? 1000 _5 1 3 ABC Legal Services 633 Yeslef Way ff Seattle, WA 98104 Complex Litigation Section A - 800 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98104-3188 91-1153514 A USE SPACE BELOW AS TO DEVELOP OR EXPLAIN GOODS OR SFIRVICFIS PURCHASED STAPLE PACKING SLEPS ON BACK Please see attached i11Voiee(s) in the amount Oli I 75.00 Qlttach packing sl?o(ls) applicable) A IN #202886l4dated 3/16/10 $20.00 INV #202849-43 dated 1/10 $20.00 INV #202845l8 dated 3/10/10 $12.50 0 INV #20281872 dated 3/2/10 $22.50 - Ili" 1 Prepared by: Phone Number Agency - Prinl name Sigilalufe Date A nes Roche 206-587-5094 Lani Briehl Master Index Sub Sub Sub Budget 0 SF-02099 PRR-2011-00450 pg . a i EI N0 Heafin%Set A |21 Hear1ng_1s et: Mot1onHear1ng: 6/25/10 Trial Date: 9/1 2010 Time? 3500 AM 5 5 The Honorable Judge Hicks STATE OF WASHINGTON HURSTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT TORE JOHNSON, NO. 09-2-01183-1 - A Plaintifii STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMTS SAL V. A OFFICE OF ALL STATE COSMETOLOGY AND OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OR OTHERVVISE, Defendant. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Plaintiftl Tore Johnson, acting pro se, and Defendants, Department Of Licensing And Office of State Cosmetology [sic] And All Employees Named Or Otherwise, acting by and through Robert M, McKenna, Attorney General, and Jody Lee Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, that the above-entitled action may be dismissed with prejudice and Without costs, this matter having been fully settled STIPULATION AND ORDER OF 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON DISMISSAL Licensing Administrative Law Division 1125 Washington Street SE, PO A and compromised between Plaintiff and Defendants. DATED this gsitday oflune, 2010. ROBERT M. MCKENNA Attorney General /5 . Jody Lee Campbell, WSBA #32233 Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Defendant jf i .fi i Tore Johnson Plaintiff STIPULATION AND ORDER OF 2 DISMISSAL ATTORNEY GENERAL OF Licensing Administrative Law Division 1 125 Washington Street SE, PO Box 401 I0 olympia, WA ORDER THIS MATTER having come before the undersigned judge of the above- entitled Court, based on the foregoing stipulation, now, therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-entitled action is dismissed with prejudice and Without costs or interest to any party. DONE IN OPEN COURT this day of June, 2010. RICHARD D. HICKS JUDGE I-IICKS Presented by: Approved as to Form and A Notice of Presentation Waived: ROBERT M. MCKENNA Attorney General I A I Jody Lee pb 11, WSBA #32233 Tore Johnson Assistant Attorney General Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendants ATION AND ORDER OF 3 ATTORNEY GENERAL or WASHINGTON DISMISSAL aw 110 Olympia, WA 985% (360) 753_27 00450 ggi zona IZI No Healing Set ATTQFINEV GENIff_i-ffm ATTORNEY GENERAIIS OFFICE Hearing is Set LICENSING ADMINISTHAME LAW DIVISION LICENSING ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DIVISI I)ate: U, II Time: -I The Honorable Judge Pomeroy i 1 I I I STATE on WASHINGTON it an THURSTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ANGELA KING ROBERTSON, NO. 08-2-00375-O Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER OP VOLUNTARY DI SMIS SAL WITH V. PREIU DICE I STATE OP WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING, Defendant. I. STIPULATION The parties to this action, the Depaitment of Licensing, through its attorneys, ROB MCKENNA, Attorney General, and JERALD R. ANDERSON, Assistant Attorney General, and Plaintiff Angela King Robertson, through her attorney, STEVEN ROSEN, stipulate that the Complaint shall be dismissed with prejudice and without award of costs. STIPULATION AND ORDER OF 1 A 1 HUT "Gi fi@i1I1@d~ VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH SF-02103 PREJUDICE PRR-2011-00450 4 A DATED this dey of May, 2008. ROB MCKENNA Attorney General LD R. AN Senior Counsel WSBA Ne. S734 DY CAMPBE ssistant Attorney General WSBA No. 32233 Attorneys for Defendant STEVE ROSEN WSBA No. 26034 Attorney for Plaintiff II. ORDER Based upon the above stipulation ofthe parties, it is ORDERED, ADIUDGED AND DECREED: The Complaint in the above-captioned action is hereby dismissed with prejudice end without award of costs. DATED this day of STIPULATION AND ORDER OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE 2008. Judge Christine 0 eroy 2 IA toText entry not delin SF-02104 PRR-2011-00450 Presented by: ROB Attorney General A-J A '0 DY CAMPBEI _ssista f;A13rorney Ge eral WSBA No. 32233 Attorneys for Defendant LD R. AND ON Senior Counsel WSBA No. 18643 Attorneys for Defendant Notic Presentment Waived: STEVEN RO SEN WSBA No. 26034 Attorney for Plaintiff STIPULATION AND ORDER OF 3 A 'ren entry norden <1 VOLUNTARY DISMIS SAL WITH PREJUDICE SF-02105 PRR-2011-00450 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE THIS SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE ettlement Agreement") is entered into on this day of 4, 2008, by Andrea King Robertson and the State of Washington and the Washington State Department of Licensing ("Defendants"). RECITALS On or about February 20, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants inthe Superior Court ofthe State of Washington for Thurston County (Cause No. 08-2-00375-00), which complaint arose out of a dispute over a public records request the Plaintiif made on the Defendants, dated September 20, 2007. The parties desire to enter into this Settlement Agreement in order to provide for E111 settlement and discharge of all claims which are or might have been the subject ofthe Complaint, upon the tenns and conditions set forth herein. AGREEMENT 1. Release and Discharge In consideration ofthe payments and other obligations called for herein, the Plaintiif completely releases and forever discharges Defendants, their agents, employees, attorneys, insurers, and all other persons, iirms or corporations that may be liable, of and from any and all past, present and future claims of any kind whatsoever which the Plaintiff now has, or may hereafter acquire, on account of or in any Way growing out ofthe dispute described in the Complaint. This Release shall be a fully binding and complete settlement between the Plaintiff and Defendants, their assigns and successors. 2. Paygents and Other Obligations. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE 1 PRR-2011-00450 In consideration ofthe Release set forth above, Defendants agree to pay the Plaintiff $1,260.00 3. Attomey's Fees and Costs. Apart Hom attorney's fees which may be included in $1,260.00 described in paragraph 2, each party hereto shall bear its own attorneys' fees and costs related to the above referenced lawsuit. 4. No Admission of Liability. lt is understood and agreed by the parties that this settlement is a compromise ofa disputed claim, and the payment and other obligations are not to be construed as an admission of liability onthe part of either party. 5. Delivery of Stipulation for and Order of Dismissal. Concurrently with the execution of this Settlement Agreement, counsel for the Plaintiif will execute and deliver to counsel for the Defendants, a stipulation and order dismissing the State with prejudice as a party to the above referenced lawsuit. 6 . Additional Documents. Plaintiff and Defendants agree to cooperate fully and execute any and all supplementary documents and to take all additional actions which may be necessary or appropriate to give full force and eifect to the terms and intent of this Settlement Agreement. The parties agree to dismiss the lawsuit herein, with prejudice and without costs to any party. 7. Entire Agreement and Successors in Interest This Settlement Agreement contains the entire agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendants with regard to the matters set forth herein and shall be binding upon and inure to the beneiit ofthe executors, administrators, personal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns of each. No promises SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE 2 $50,107 PRR-2011-00450 of any kind have been made in connection with this Settlement, other than as stated in this Settlement Agreement. AND AI ROBERTSON .TE YANDERSON Plailitiff WSBA #8734 Date: 4 Senior Counsel 3 Attorney foggy Defendants Date: ?225 BY: ?jff ZW/fm\ BY: e_oo" - STEVE CAMPBEL WSBA 26034 if SBA #32233 Attorney for Plainti Assistant Attorney General Date: 161% Attorney for Defendants Date: 5 3 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELEASE 3 3902108 PRR-2011-00450 1" El EXPEDITE l" . El No Hearing Set 2 3 Hearing is Set gifitez' 7 me- EE .1 Goeto The Honorable Judge Ann Hirsch COUNTY STATE OF WASHINGTON THURSTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT D. EDSON CLARK, an individual, NO. O9-2-01330-3 Plaintiff STIPULATION AND ORDER OF V. DISMIS SAL WASHINGTON BOARD OF ACCOUNTAN CY, a Public Agency, Defendant. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Plaintiff D. Edson Clark, acting by and through Michele Earl-Hubbard and Chris Roslaniec, and Defendant Washington Board of Accountancy, acting by and through Robert M. McKenna, Attomey General, Mary M. Tennyson, Sr. Assistant Attorney General, and Jody Lee Campbell, Assistant Attorney General, that the above-entitled action may be dismissed with prejudice and without costs, this matter having been fully settled and compromised. A gf ary M. ennyson, WS A 11197 Michele Earl-Hubbard WSBA #26 54 ody Lee Campbell, WS #32233 Greg Overstreet, WSBA #26682 Attorneys for Defendant Attomeys for Plaintiff STIPULATION AND ORDER OF 1 DISMISSAL 1125 WBSITDEIDR sm: SE, PO ami 401 I0 4~Dl 10 WA 9850 (360) 753-2702 SF-02109 PRR-2011-00450 ORDER THIS MATTER having come before the undersigned judge of the above-entitled Court, based on the foregoing stipulation, now, therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above-entitled action shall be dismissed with prejudice and without costs or terest to any party. f' 061 DATED this day of October, 2009. Presented by: ROBERT M. MCKENNA Attorney General M. ennyson, WSB 11197 Assis tAttorney Gen ral ody Lee Campbell, WSBA #32233 Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Defendant Approved as to form; Notice of presentation waived: ALLIED LAW GROUP, LLC Mm el ar ubbard WSBA #26454 fn The orable Judge irsch Chris Roslaniec, WSBA #40568 Attomeys for Plaintiff STIPULATION AND ORDER OF 2 ATTORNEY GENERAL QF WASHINQTON DISMISSAL Llcensing& Law Division I |25 Washington Street SE, P0 Box 40110 Olympia. WA 98504-Ol I0 (360) 753-2702 SF-02110 PRR-2011-00450 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN WASHINGTON STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY, RICHARD C. SWEENEY, CPA, JANE DOE SWEENEY, THOMAS SADLER, CPA, JANE DOE SADLER, EDWIN G. JOLICOEUR, CPA AND D. EDSON CLARK, CPA, RACHELLE A. BENDOW, CPA, ANDREW D. RAYMOND, CPA, AND DAVID D. BAUMGART, CPA (AND RELATED CPA THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into as of the date of the last signature hereto by and between the Washington State Board of Accountancy (including its ofiicers, agents, and employees), Richard C. Sweeney, CPA, Jane Doe Sweeney, Thomas Sadler, CPA, Jane Doe Sadler, and Edwin G. Jolicoeur, CPA (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Board") and D. Edson Clark, CPA, Rachelle A. Benbow, CPA, Andrew D. Raymond, CPA, David B. Baumgart, CPA, Clark, Raymond Company, CPA (partnership PLLC), D. Edson Clark, CPA, P.S., D. Edson Clark Assoc. P.S., Rachelle A. Benbow, CPA, P.S., Andrew D. Raymond, CPA, P.S., and D. Edson Clark, CPA, PLLC (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Clark"). AGREEMENT In consideration of the mutual promises set forth below, the Board and Clark hereby agree as follows: 1. Public Records Requests. Clark agrees that all requests for public records submitted to the Board prior to the date of this Agreement are satistied by the documents provided to him as of October 9, 2009, and that the Board may cease processing these requests, including the requests submitted by Clark or his attorneys on the following dates: December l, 2007 December 15, 2007 December 21, 2007 December 15, 2007 . April 17, 2008 May 27, 2008 October 8, 2008 February 5, 2009 April 10, 2009 June 16, 2009 I une 16, 2009 June 17, 2009 June 23, 2009 August 10, 2009 (0) September 23, 2009 Page 1 of 6 SF-02111 PRR-2011-00450 2. Lawsuits. Within 30 days of the date of this Agreement, Clark will dismiss and waive appeal ofthe following matters. The Board agrees to cooperate and immediately sign all necessary documentation to fulfill this paragraph: D. Edson Clark v. Washington Board of Accountancy, Thurston County Superior Court No. 08-2-00890-5. D. Edson Clark; Andrew Raymond, Clark Raymond Co. PLLC D. Edson Clark &As.soc. P.S., D. Edson Clark, CPA P. S. v. Richard Sweeney and Washington Board of Accountancy, Court of Appeals No. 38847-2-II. D. Edson Clark D. Edson Clark CPA P.S., Andrew D. Raymond Andrew D. Raymond CPA P. S., Rachelle A. Benbow, and Rachelle A. Benbow CPA P.S. v. Washington Board of Accountancy Thurston County Superior Court No. 08-2-02649-l. This matter is already voluntarily dismissed, and Clark agrees not to re-tile it. D. Edson Clark v. Richard CZ Sweeney and Washington Board of Accountancy, King County Superior Court No. 08-2-40644-0; Remand hearing before the Board regarding ACB-964, Final Order of Board entered September 21, 2009. D. Edson Clark v. Washington State Board of/iccountancy, Richard Sweeney, Jane Doe Sweeney, Thomas Sadler, Jane Doe Sadler, and Edwin Jolicoew; Court of Appeals No. 63 8190-I. D. Edson Clark v. Washington Board ofAccountancy, Thurston County Superior Court No. 330-3. 4 D. Edson Clark V. Washington Board of/lccountancy, Thurston County Superior Court No. 09-2-01813-S. 3. Board Investigations. Within 30 days of the date of this Agreement, the Board will close, without any finding of fact or of violation, with no fi.l.l'l1'1Sl' action, and with prejudice, the following investigations, which comprise all outstanding investigations involving Clark: Board Case No. 2008-046, Clark Raymond Company (a partnership), D. Edson Clark, CPA, D. Edson Clark, CPA, P.S., Andrew D. Raymond, CPA, Andrew D. Raymond, P.S. (ika Andrew Raymond, CPA, P.S.). Board Case No. 2008-066, Andrew D. Raymond, CPA, Andrew D. Raymond, P.S. (ika Andrew D. Raymond, CPA, P.S.), Clark Raymond Company (a partnership), Clark Raymond Company, PLLC. Board Case No. Edson Clark, CPA, D. Edson Clark, CPA, P.S., Clark Raymond Company (a partnership), Clark Raymond Company, PLLC. Page 2 of 6 SF-02112 PRR-2011-00450 Board Case No. 2008-093, Rachelle A. Benbow, CPA (tka Rachelle A. Gill, CPA), Rachelle A. Benbow, CPA, P.S. (fka Rachelle A. Gill, CPA, P.S.), Clark Raymond Company, PLLC. 4. CPA Firm Licenses. Within 30 days of the date of this Agreement, the Board will issue without condition the licenses that are the subject of the Board brief adjudicative proceedings (BAPS) listed below. D. Edson Clark, Rachelle A. Benbow, and Andrew D. Raymond will withdraw their respective requests for the brief adjudicative proceedings. The Board agrees to cooperate and immediately sign all necessary documentation to fultill this paragraph Board BAP No. 2008-05, D. Edson Clark CPA, P.S. Board BAP No. 2008-06, Rachelle A. Benbow, CPA, P.S. Board BAP No. 2009-01, Andrew D. Raymond CPA, P.S. 5. CPA License (Baumgart). Within 30 days of the date of this Agreement, the Board will issue without condition the license that is the subject of Board Case No. 2008-088, David B. Baumgart, CPA and close the investigation without any 'finding of fact or of violation, with no further action, and 'with prejudice, which comprises all outstanding investigations involving Baumgart. . 6. Correct Board Records re Clark. Within 30 days of the date of this Agreement, the Board will amend the designations of previously closed Board tiles Nos. 96-006 and 96-007 relating to Clark to reflect that the tiles were closed with "no finding of violation," instead of the manner in which they are currently labeled "no evidence of a continuing violation"). The Board will send written continnation of these changes to Clark within said 30 day period. 7. Professional CPA licensing complaints. Nothing in' this Agreement prevents the_ Board from acting on professional CPA licensing complaints against any person. Each of the Board members has been provided with Clarlc's complaint letter dated September 28, 2009, and nothing in this Agreement requires him to withdraw it. 4 8. Stipulation and Agreed Order. Within 30 days-of the date of this Agreement, the Board will vacate Stipulation and Agreed Order No. ACB-964 executed by the Board on November 28, 2007 with prejudice and send to Clark written continuation of such vacation. 9. Payment. Within 30 days of completion of Clark's obligations under paragraphs 2 and 4 of this Agreement regarding the dismissal of the above suits and the withdrawal of the BAPs, the Board will pay to the Allied Law Group, LLC trust account thesum of $500,000 in consideration of C1ark's promises as set forth in this Agreement. This payment 'includes refund of the $3,500 investigative costs previously paid by Clark under the Stipulated and Agreed Order that is to be vacated under paragraph 8 of this Agreement. a 10. Agreed Statement. The parties agree to the following statement with respect to all outstanding disputes between them: Page 3 of 6 .. . SF-02113 PRR-2011-00450 On October 9, 2009, D. Edson Clark and the Washington State Board of Accountancy agreed to a global settlement through mediation of all matters in dispute between them. Under the terms of the settlement, Mr. Clark agreed to a global release of any and all claims against the Board and all named defendants in all lawsuits, to dismiss and withdraw all lawsuits and appeals against the Board and its officials, to withdraw, or deem satisfied, all requests for administrative hearin on licensing applications, and to withdraw all public records requests he has sugsmitted to the Board. The Board agreed to issue CPA firm and individual licenses sought by Clark and his colleagues, to close an investigation into past licensing issues, vacate an unpublished 2007 Stipulation and Agreed Order, and pay $500,000 in consideration of the dismissal of the lawsuits and other matters and the release of all claims, known and unknown. 11. Release of Claims. It is the intention of the Board and Clark that this Agreement is a final, conclusive and complete release of all known and unknown and anticipated and unanticipated damages arising out of any occurrences or events to the date of this Agreement and will definitively settle and resolve all claims, known and unknown, that the Board or Clark has asserted or could have asserted against each other (including the Board and its officers, agents, and employees), and the Board and Clark will not have any further liability to each other for claims, known or unknown, arising out of events that have occurred to the date of this Agreement. Therefore, the Board and Clark (and other successors in interest) hereby completely release, forever discharge, and save harmless each other (including the Board and its officers, agents, and employees) from any and all existing and future claims, damages, causes of action, demands, suits, liability, obligations, liens, costs (including payment of attorney fees), and expenses of any nature whatsoever arising out of occurrences or events described in the lawsuits previously filed by Clark against the Board and arising out of any other events involving the Board and Clark claimed to have occurred prior to the date of this Agreement. 12. On the condition that they have complied with the dispute resolution clause in this Agreement, the parties each shall be entitled to 'seek injunctive relief for specific performance in the event that the other party materially breaches its obligations under this Agreement. The parties acknowledge that a material breach 'of this Agreement could result in irreparable harm to the other party such that monetary relief will be insufficient compensation- and that injunctive relief is necessary and appropriate to give meaning to this Agreement and protect the parties' respective rights and interests. The parties agree that the remedy of injunctive relief in a judicial forum for specific performance of this Agreement is the exclusive remedy and that, after compliance with the dispute resolution clause in this Agreement, no other remedies in law or equity are available to the parties under this Agreement. 13. Miscellaneous . Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement and understanding of the parties with respect to the entire subject matter hereof; and there are no representations, inducements, promises or agreements, oral or otherwise, not embodied herein. Any and all prior discussions, negotiations, commitments and understandings relating thereto are merged herein. There is no condition precedent to the effectiveness of this Agreement other than as stated herein, and there are no related collateral agreements existing between the parties that are not referenced herein. Page SF-02114 PRR-2011-00450 Amendment andfor Modification. Neither this Agreement nor any term or provision hereof may be changed, waived, discharged, amended, modified or terminated orally, or in any manner other than by an instrument in writing signed by all of the parties hereto. Venue. Any lawsuit to enforce this Agreement shall be filed in Thurston County Superior Court. . Costs and Attorney's Fees. If any party hereto shall bring any suit, arbitration or action against another for relief; declaratory or otherwise, arising out of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall have and recover against the other party, in addition to all court costs and disbursements, such sum as thecourt may adjudge to be a reasonable attomey's fee. The parties hereby agree to bear all their own fees and costs associated with all matters resolved under this Agreement. Interpretation and Authorization. The parties agree that this Agreement shall not be construed in favor of or against any party. The undersigned warrant and represent that they have complete and proper authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of their parties, that they have read this Agreement and understand its contents. The Board has authorized its attorneys to sign this Ageement. Clark and his attomeys have authority to sign this Agreement on behalf of D. Edson Clark, CPA, D. Edson Clark, CPA, P.S., D. Edson Clark, CPA, PLLC, Clark, Raymond E.: Company, CPA, PLLC (and partnership), Rachelle A. Benbow, CPA, Rachelle A. Benbow, CPA, PS, Andrew D. Raymond, CPA, Andrew D. Raymond, P.S., Andrew D. Raymond, CPA, PS, and David B. Baumgart, CPA. Non-Admission of Liability. This Agreement is a compromise of disputed claims between the parties and is the product of serious and extended negotiations. The parties' entry into this Agreement is a result of compromise and does not constitute an admission of liability. The parties agree that this Agreement shall have no precedential value for any other matters or lawsuits. 14. Dispute Resolution. The parties agree that they shall attempt to resolve any dispute arising under this Agreement according to the following sequence of dispute resolution measures, until the dispute is finally resolved: (1) arbitration between the _Board and Clark facilitated by Gregg Bertram or some other arbitrator to be mutually agreed upon by the parties and (2) if arbitration does not result in final resolution of the dispute, any party may take such lega] action as is authorized under this Agreement. For WASHINGTON STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY RICHARD C. SWEENEY, CPA JANE DOE SWEENEY THOMAS SADLER, CPA JANE DOE SADLER EDVVIN G. JOLICOEUR, CPA Page 5 of 6 SF-02115 ROBERT M. MCKENNA Attomey General fdA Zn/ Sr A ant Attorney al Mary ennyson, SB 73' 1197 - Bruce Turcott, WSBA #15435 Assistant Attorney General Jody Lee Campbell, WSBA #32233 Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Board For D. CLARK, CPA D. EDSON CLARK, CPA., P.s. D. EDSON CLARK ASSOC., P.s. D. EDSON CLARK, CPA, PLLC Date: CLARK, RAYMOND COMPANY, CPA, PLLC (ana parmersmp) RACHELLE A. BENBOW, CPA RACHELLE A. DENDOW, CPA, ANDREW D. RAYMOND, CPA ANDREW D. RAYMOND, P.s. ANDREW D. RAYMOND, CPA, P.s. DAVID D. BAUMGART, CPA Date: 2 D. Edson Clark, CPA ALLIED LAW GROUP, LLC By Greg Overs et, WSBA #26454 Attorney for Clark FAHLMAN, OLSON LITTLE, PLLC By Kurt . Olson, WSBA #13045 Attorney for Benbow, Raymond, Baumgart, and affiliated CPA entities Page 6 of Date: Date:/5? 6 SF-02116 PRR-2011-00450 El EXPEDITE El Status Conference is set: Date: Time: 9:00 The Honorable Wm. Thomas McPhee ,fa Ji is L.. 1 aiastran ,aw STATE OF VVASHINGTON THURSTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT MAUREEN CLINGMAN, PAT PAT JOHN REDAL, MELANIE SCHWENT, AVA VANESSA UNDERWOOD, ALAN RATHBUN, I AMES LUNSP ORD, HEIDI BRALEY, EARL I-IILL, LISA REINKE, ROGER DEMDT G, CHRIS LIU. Plaintiffs, V. PAGE A. REBELO, WASHINGTON PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL 365, WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, Defendants. NO. ll-2-Ol468-9 sr11>ULArEn 1\/1or1oN AND A AGREED or DISMISSAL 1 EA 95%, MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER COME NOW Plaintiffs Maureen Clingnian and James Lunsford, pro se, and Defendant the Washington State Liquor Control Board (Board), by and through its attorneys, ROBERT M. MCKENNA, Attorney General, and MARY M. TENNYSON, Sr. Assistant Attorney General, and Washington Public Employees Association, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 365, and Page A. Rehelo, hy and through their attorney Sean Leonard, of Schwerin Campbell Barnard lglitzin and Lavitt, LLP, without waiving objections STIPULATED MOTION AND AGREED ORDER QF DISMISSAL 1125 Washington street sn, PO Box 401 10 Olympia, WA 98504-0110 0 (360)753-2702 SF-02117 PRR-2011-00450 to improper service, and request the Court to enter an Order Dismissingt the Complaint, and Denying Plaintiffs Motion for entry of a protective order. 1. 2. 4 BASIS Although numerous persons are named in the caption of the Complaint, only Maureen Clingman and James Lunsford have signed documents filed with the court in this action. A complaint Was filed on July 5, 2011 but was not signed by any of the Plaintiffs. On July 6, 2011 an Amended Complaint, signed only by Plaintiff Maureen Clingman, was tiled. Defendants assert that Plaintiffs have not properly instituted this action, nor has it been properly served on Defendants. Defendants have each tiled a Notice of Appearance, but have not tiled an answer, nor has any motion for default been tiled or noted for hearing. See Exhibit A and to Declaration of Mary M. Tennyson. - Plaintiff James Lunsford filed an Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order on July 14, 2011. The motion Was originally set for hearing on July 28, 2011 but was not noted for hearing. The matter Was stricken from the calendar by the judicial assistant When the judicial assistant realized that Plaintiffs Were acting pro se, and that only Ms." Clingman had signed the Amended Complaint. See Exhibits B, and to Declaration of Mary M. Tennyson. Plaintiffs do not Wish to pursue this action, and request the Court to dismiss the case 'Without prejudice. Defendants do not oppose this motion. Defendants Page Rebelo and Washington Public Employees Association, United Food and- Commercial Workers Local 365 have not been properly served with the Complaint, nor With any other pleadings in this case. STHJULATED MQTIGN AND AGREED 2 GENERAL OF WASHINGTON L`e in_&Ad "t ORDER OF DISMISSAL Olympia, WA 98504-0110 I A (360)753~2702 18 PRR-2011 00450 4. Plaintiff Maureen Clingman has authorized dismissal of the case, per email to the undersigned counsel to the Liquor Control Board. See Exhibit to Declaration of Mary M. Tennyson. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the Plaintiis and counsel for the Defendants hereto that the above-entitled and numbered complaint may be dismissed Without prejudice and without cost to either party. ,gf/L41 MARY TENNYSON, a Senior sistant Attorney General WSBA ll 197 Ma reen Clingnian, Plaintiff ro Se I . -V . Lunds d, aintiff Pro Se ~5-ff ?1,7/1,uff' (3 Chg! Qccgas Sear1'Leonard, attorney for Page Rebelo and Washington Public Employees Association, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 365 ORDER THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' complaint, filed on July 5, 2011, and the Amended Complaint, filed on July 6, 2011 is dismissed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining Order to prevent the Washington State Liquor Control Board from releasing STIPULATED MOTION AND AGREED 3 vision URDER OF ll25~Washir1gton Street SE, PO Box 40110 Olympia, WA 98504-Ol IO (360) 753-2702 SF-02119 PRR-2011-00450 public records requested by Page Rebelo on June 20, 2011, is denied. ENTERED n11Sf>'O any of ,2011. Judge Wm. hornas l\/loPl1ee Presented by: ROBERT M. MCKENNA Attorney Ge- eral 1' f/Lf; MARY ENNYS ON Senior istant Attorney eral WSBA 1 1197 Agreed to, Notice of Presentation Waived: 3 Plaintiff Pro Se laintiff Pro Se J/"cry hgiktff 61+/ztelwaf ,ga pg Seaifleonard, Attorney for Page Rebglo and Washington Public Employees Association, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 365 STTPULATED MQUQN AND AGREED 4 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON &Ad ORDER OF D15 MTSSAL Olympia, WA 98504-0110 (360) 753-2702 SF-02120 PRR-2011-00450 EXPEDITE Status Conference is set: Date: 7/29/2011 Time: 9:00 AM The Honorable Christine Pomeroy 5 fell My 4. STATE OF WASHINGTON THURSTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT ROGER DEMING, CATHY HERNES S, NO. 1-2-01505-7 MARIA PAZIO, - MOTION AND AGREED ORDER Plaintiffs, OP VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL v. KING TV, LINDA BYRON, WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD, Defendants. MOTION FOR ENTRY OF ORDER COME NOW Plaintiffs Roger Deming, Cathy Herness, and Maria Fazio, pro se, and Defendant the Washington State Liquor Control Board (Board), by and through its attorneys, ROBERT M. MCKENNA, Attorney General, and MARY M. TENNYSON, Sr. Assistant Attorney General, and request the Court to enter an Order Dismissing the Complaint, and Denying Plaintiffs Motion for entry of a protective order. Plaintiffs de not Wish to pursue this action, and request the Court to dismiss the case, Without prejudice.. The Board does not oppose this motion. Defendants King TV and Linda Byron have not been served with the Complaint, nor with any other pleadings in this ease. MOTION AND AGREED QRDER 1 ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WASHINGTON Licensing Administrative Law Division 1 125 Washington Street SE, PO Box 401 10 Olympia, WA 93504-Ol 10 (360) 753-2702 SF-02121 PRR-2011-00450 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the Plaintiffs and counsel for the Defendant hereto that the above-entitled and numbered complaint may be dismissed without prejudice - without cost to either party fi MARY ENNYSON, Senior nt Attorney neral I WSBA 4/ ,Milf I Plaintif Plai ro or A (A f/ MARIA FAZIO Plaintiff Pro Se MQTION AND AGREED QRDER 2 ror! AutoText entzy not defined. SF-02122 PRR-2011-00450 ORDER THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs' complaint, filed on July 8, 2011, is dismissed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs motion for an "Immediate Protective Order" to prevent the Washington State Liquor Control Board from releasing records requested by Linda Byron of King TV on May 18, 2011, is denied. ENTERED this day of Oo r.~f 2011. ledge/Court Commissioner Presented by: REBEKAH ZINN ROBERT M. MCKENNA AttOmeyGewa1 count COMMISSIONER We ,aff MARY . NNYSON Senior Attorney Ge al WSBA I 1 197 I Wap .bw Agre to, Not ce resentation Waivedz ar 57 Plai 1ffP Se ali HYHE SS Plainti fP f- MARIA PAZIO Plaintiff Pro Se MQTION AND AGREED QRDER 3 Error! AutoText entry not defined. SF-02123 PRR-2011-00450 I dg /c 1 EXPEDITE Hearing is Set: Date: ime: Ju aeridar IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON TN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF THURSTON I N7 JUN 1 7 zoos I GTECH CORPORATION, at foreign corporation; et al., I Plaintiffs, NO. 08 2 01150 7 V- I I DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL I ADMINISTRATION et al., MOTION AND ORDER OE DISMISSAL I Defendants. I Come now the plaintiffs, by and through their attomeys, YOUNGLOVE LYMAN COKER, P.L.L.C., and move the above-entitled court for an order dismissing the above-entitled matter with prejudice and Without costs to the parties. This motion is based upon the files and records herein. DATED this VI day of une, 2008. YOUNGLOVE LYMAN COKER, P.L.L.C. Gregory Rhodes, Attorney for Plaintiffs YOUNGLOVE LYMAN COKER, P.L.L MorroN AND ORDER ATTORNEYSAT OLYNIPIA, WASHINGTON 95507-7846 FACSIMILE (360) T54-9258 (360) 357-7191 SF-02124 PRR-2011-00450 ORDER This matter having come on regularly before the above-entitled court on plaintiffs' motion for an order dismissing the above-entitled action with prejudice; and the court having read said motion and being fully advised in the premises, now, therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that the above-entitled action be and the same is hereby dismissed with prejudice and Without costs to any party. DONE IN OPEN COURT this day of ,2008. DAVID HUNTER OF MONTLAW COURT COMMISSIONER Presented by; YOUNGLOVE LYMAN COKER, Gregory Rhodes, Attorney for Plaintiffs MOTION AND ORDER YOUNGLOVE LYNIAN 8| COKER, ATTORNEYS AT LAW WESTHILLS II OFFICE PARK .L..L OF 2 BLDG 16 OLYIVIPIA, WASHINGTON 93507 TB FACSIMILE (360) 754-9266 (360) 357-T791 6 SF-02125 PRR-2011-00450 STATE OF WASHINGTON YAKIMA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT MICHAEL VILLEGAS, AND NO. O7-2-04214-7 MICHELE VILLEGAS, IN DIVIDUALLY, and as TRUSTEES ofthe BNA REVOCABLE LIVING FINDINGS OF FACT, TRUST, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND ORDER DENYING PERMANENT Plaintiff, INJUNCTION V. WASHINGTON STATE LOTTERY COMMISSION, Defendant. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Plaintiffs are the winners of the $6.6 million jackpot in the State Lottery, awarded on October 15, 2007; Plaintiffs claimed the Lottery prize in the _name of the BNA Revocable Trust. 2. The State Lottery is administered by the Washington State Lottery (Lottery), an agency of the state of Washington. Records held by Lotteiy are public records, subject to public disclosure upon request, pursuant to Chapter 42.56 RCW. - FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS 1 [3 IVC OF LAW AND ORDER DENYING 1125 Washington Street SE, PO Box 40110 PERMANENT INJUNCTION Olympia, wp, 98504-0110 (360) 753-2702 F-021 26 PRR-2011-00450 Lottery required Plaintiffs to provide -Lottery with plaintiffs actual names and social security numbers as part of the process to claim the Lottery prize they won. Washington's Lottery is mandated by federal law to deduct a minimum amount of taxes from payments to Lottery wimlers to satisfy federal income tax Withholding requirements. The claim form record required by Lottery in order to support the payment of the Lottery prize won by Plaintiffs is a public record under the Public Records Act. The information held by Lottery that identifies the individuals is contain in a public record as defined in RCW Plaintiffs believe that their personal safety, and that of their children, will be jeopardized if their names are released to the public as Winners ofthe $6.6 million jackpot. Plaintiffs sought and obtained an ex parte preliminary injunction on December 5, 2007, enjoining Lottery from revealing their identities or any other personal information regarding Plaintiffs as individuals or as Trustees of the BNA Revocable Living Trust. An Order to Show Cause set the hearing on issuance of a permanent injunction for December 14, 2007. The public has a legitimate interest in knowing the names of persons who win prizes paid with public moneys, as Lottery prizes. Plaintiffs have failed to show that disclosure of their names is not of legitimate concern to the public, as required by RCW 42.5 6.050. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS 2 icensmg mis ra ive ivision OF LAW AND ORDER DEN-YI-NG 1125 Washington Street SE, PO Box 40110 PERMANENT INJUNCTION Olympia, WA 98504-0110 (360) 753-2702 F-021 27 PRR-2011 00450 Plaintiffs have failed to identify an exemption that applies to the information and, thus, under RCW 42.56.050 no right to privacy ofthe information exists. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Public Records Act, recently re-codified in Chapter 42.56 RCW, is a strongly-worded mandate for disclosure of public records. The Washington State Lottery is an agency of the state, created by Chapter 67.70 RCW, and subject to the Act. RCW There is no specific exemption in the Public Records Act that exempts the names of Lottery winners from release in the event of a request made under that Act for the names of winners. The Public Records Act is to be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed. The Public Records Act establishes an affirmative duty to disclose public records unless the records fall within specific statutory exemptions or prohibitions. RCW 42.56.2l0(2) allows the release of even those records that are subject to a exemption to public disclosure, if a hearing with notice to every interested person is held and it is determined that the exemption of the records is clearly unnecessary to protect any individual's right of privacy or any vital governmental function. No iight to privacy exists in the Public Records Act independent of the specific statutory exemptions. RCW 42.56.070 does allow an agency to delete identifying details in a manner consistent with the Act when it makes available or publishes any public record to FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS 3 lCCl'l5lI1 Ia WC IVISIOII OF LAW AND ORDER 1125 waghingron sm-:st SE, P0 Box 40110 PERMANENT INJUNCTION Olympia, WA 98504-01 I0 (360) 753-2702 SF-02128 PRR-2011 00450 the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by the Act. RCW 42.56.050 defines the "right to privacy as follows: . A person's "right to privacy," "right of privacy," "p1ivacy," or "personal privacy," as these tenns are used in this chapter, is invaded or violated only if disclosure of information about the person: (1) Would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (2) is not of legitimate concern to the public. The provisions of this chapter dealing with the iight to privacy in certain public records do not create any right of privacy beyond those lights that are specified in this chapter as express' exemptions from the public's right to inspect, examine, or copy public records. To prevent release of their identifying information, Plaintiffs must show that they come within an exemption in the Public Disclosure Act that applies to the information. Second, Plaintiff must also demonstrate that disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and is not of legitimate concern to the public. Plaintiffs have shown that disclosure of their identity would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, due to theirconcerns over their safety and the safety of their children. Plaintiffs have not shown that disclosure of their identifying information is not of legitimate concern to the public. The monies that are collected and flow through the Lottery are public monies. The public has a right to know the true winners behind the "screen" of the trust instrument created by Plaintiffs. FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS 4 [tl IVC IVISIOII OF LAW AND ORDER DENYING 1125 Washington Street SE, PO Box 40110 PERMANENT INIUNCTION Olympia, WA 98504-0110 (360) 753-2702 F-021 29 PRR-2011 00450 ORDER P1a1nt1H" motlon for a permanent mjunctlon IS denred The prel1m1na1?y lnjunction issued on December 5 2007 w11l place for (30) days after entry of tl'1lS Order. The port1ons of the prel1m1nary1n]unct1on sealmg the files and records 1n tl1lS matter will be at that t1me unless an appeal has been Hled and a stay of th1s order entered. DATED th1s day of 2008 JUDGE JAMES LUST Presented by (41 ary nnyson WSBA 11197 Sr ASS1 tAttomey Ge ral Heldl Bolong WSBA #17150 Bolong Law Off1ce PLLC Attorney for P1a1nt1ffs 7 3 7 y, _ff tl'Q;;rr1r rr gf 1 . 7 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS 5 QF fa IVC iVlS10fl OF LAW AND ORDER DENYING ll2S washington S0661 SE, PO Box 401 IO PERMANENT INIUNCTION Olympia, WA 93504-01 IO (360)753-2702 SF-02130 PRR-2011-00450 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement is entered into by William Clark ("Clari<") and the University of Washington ("University") and is effective as ofthe date the last-signing patty signs the Agreement (the "Effective Date"). Clark and the University are referred to herein individually as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties" RECITALS A, WHEREAS, on January I, 2030, Clark tiled a Complaint for Disclosure of Public Records against the University in King County Superior Court, captioned Clark v. University of Case No, I0-2-02697-5 SEA (the and B. WHEREAS, the Lawsuit is an enforcement action brought under the Washington Public Records Act pertaining to three PRA requests made by Clark, one ofwhich was made in August 2007 (Request No. 07~l 0761) and the other two of which were made in July 2009 (Request Nos, 09-11697 and 09-l 1723) (collectively, the "Underlying PRA Reqnests"); and C. WHEREAS, the University has filed its Answer in the Lawsuit, denying liability; and D, WHEREAS, the Parties wish to enter into this Agreement to resolve the Lawsuit forthe purpose of' avoiding further litigation. TERMS OF AGREEMENT In consideration ofthe mutual promises and covenants contained in this Agreement, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Delivery of Research Data; Permitted Disclosures; Confidentiality Delivery of Research Data - On Uctober 25, 201 0, the University provided Clark with an electronic (SPSS) tile (Bates No. UWPROD009) that contained raw data for a study that was the basis ofan August 2007 article in The Journal of Pediatrics entitled "Associations Between Media Viewing and Language Development In Children Under Age 2 Years" (the "2007 from which the birth dates were redacted ("2007 Study Data"). No later than seven (7) days after the Effective Date, the University, through its counsel, will provide to Clarlc an electronic (SPSS) version ofthe 2007 Study Data that was previously produced to Clark, except that the data fields showing each individual study participant's month ofbirth ("cdemo2a"), day of birth ("cderno2b"), and date of birth shall be left unredacted, The University may also redact participant telephone numbers and alternate telephone numbers, regardless ofwliether' those fields were previously redacted. Unless otherwise specified herein, the redacted and unredacted fields shall be the same as the SPSS iile provided to Clark on October 25, 20i0, Birth Dates; Permitted Disclosures Clark agrees that he will maintain the birth dates ofthe individual participants in the 2007 Study as confidential and will not disclose those birth dates except as expressly provided herein, Clark may disclose the birth dates to his administrative assistants, attorneys and researchers hired by Clark to review, Page I #58418 vi sal analyze, and/or publish their own conclusions about the research data, as Well as the employees and/or agents ofsaid attorneys and researchers Associates"), provided that Clark's Associates agree in writing to be bound by this confidentiality provision as well as to the provisions of' paragraph Notwithstanding the foregoing, the University agrees and expressly acknowledges that Clark and Clark's Associates may disclose any data transformations created by those birth dates to anyone they choose, so long as the transformations cannot be used in and of themselves to determine the specific birth dates or identities ofthe 2007 Study participants. By way of example, although Clark could not disclose the birth dates of individual 2007 Study participants to anyone other than Clark's Associates, he may disclose transformations reflecting the age-in-rnonths or age-in~days of individual 2007 Study participants to anyone he chooses, so long as those transformations do not themselves disclose the birth dates of individual study participants and do not otherwise identify individual 2007 Study participants. No Efforts to Contact Study Participants Clark expressly acknowledges he has no interest in or intent to contact the individual participants ofthe 2007 Study. Clark and Clarl<'s Associates agree not to use the birth dates to attempt to identify such participants. lf`Clark or Clark's Associates should learn the identity of an individual 2007 Study participant, Clark and Clark's Associates agree not to attempt to contact the participant or the participant's family, and will not disclose or publish that participant's identity, 2. Telephone Numbers. Clark and Clark's Associates agree that they will not use or disclose the telephone numbers inadvertently produced by the University to Clark during discovery.. No later than seven (7) days alter the Effective Date, the University, through its counsel, will provide written notification to Clark ofthose documents it believes contain 2007 Study participants' telephone numbers ("Telephone Number Within seven (7) days after Telephone Number Notification, Clark, through his counsel, will either return those documents to the University or confirm in writing that he has deleted or destroyed the telephone numbers. Upon Clark's written request within seven (7) days after Telephone Number Notification, the University, through its counsel, will provide redacted documents that do not contain 2007 Study participant telephone numbers no later than seven (7) days after receipt by the University of Clarl<'s request. 3. Stipulated Protective Order. A Stipulated Protective Order was entered in this case on February 14, 2011 ("Protective Order"). The University agrees and expressly acknowledges that upon dismissal with prejudice of the Lawsuit, the Protective Order shall have no further force and effect, and any restrictions on Clark's or Associates' use or disclosure of birth dates or information that could be used to determine the date of birth of' participants in the 2007 Study shall be solely limited only to those restrictions expressly set forth in this Agreement. 4. Settlement Payment. No later than fourteen (14) days after the Effective Date, the University shall pay to Clark the total sum of one hundred seventy-five thousand dollars ($175,000) to reimburse him for a portion ofhis attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the Lavvsu it. This settlement payment shall be made via check payable to William Clark, who will provide a completed tax identification statement to the University's counsel no later than seven (7) days after the Effective Date. Page 2 #58418 vl sci' 5. Dismissal of Lawsuit. No later than seven (7) days after receipt by Clark of the settlement payment specified in paragraph 4, the parties shall tile with the Court a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice. The Stipulation and Order shall specify that the Protective Order entered on February 14, 2011 will be dissolved upon dismissal ofthe case. A copy of the Stipulation and Order is attached as Exhibit A. 6. Release. Each Party, acting freely and voluntarily, hereby releases and forever discharges the other Party, and any of that other Par/ty's officers, directors, control persons, agents, representatives, employees, and attorneys, from any and all causes of action, claims, damages, liabilities, and demands of any nature whatsoever, whether known or unltnevvn, arising out of (1) the Universitj/'s compliance with the Public Records Act or other applicable law or its alleged lack thereof in its responses to the Underlying PRA Requests; or (2) Clarl<'s Complaint in this Lawsuit. 7. Entire Understanding. This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding of the Parties and may be modified only by written instrument executed by all Parties. Aside from the express language of this Agreement and the Protective Order, there are no other agreements, express or implied, between the Parties in this case. 8. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon the Parties and their respective heirs, successors, and assigns.. 9. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws ofthe State of Washington without regard to the choice oflaw principles thereoi Venue for any lawsuit arising out ofthis Agreernent shall be in King County, Washington. All Parties expressly consent tojurisdiction in King County, Washington. 10. Captions. Any captions to the paragraphs in this Agreement are solely forthe convenience ofthe Parties, are not part of this Agreement, and shall not he used for the interpretation of, or for a determination ofthe validity of, this Agreement or any portion thereof. II Page .3 #58438 vl sat" 11. Counterparts and Facsimile Transmission. This Agteement may be executed in counterparts, and signatures on the Agreement may be transmitted via facsimile or electronic transmission. Cozmterparts shell be considered one and the same Agreement, and signatures on facsimile or electronic copies shall have the same force and effect as original signatures, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the ies executed this Agreement on the dates set forth below, DATED: Ma;/2; 2011 WILLIAM CLARK DATED: May 2011 By chel atteo-Boe Holme Roberts Owen. LLP Attorneys for Clark UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON DATED: May M, 2011 By Name Shari Spung Title Director of Claim Services DATED: May 2011 By Louis D. Peterson Hillis Clark Martin and Peterson P.S, Attorneys for University of Washington Page 4 #58438 vt saf 11. and Facsimile Transmission. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, and signatures on the Agreement may be transmitted via facsimile or electronic transmissionr Counterparts shall be considered one and the same Agreement, and signatures on facsimile or electronic copies shall have the same force and effect as original signatures.. ITN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties executed zhis Agreement on the dates set forth below. DATED: may 2011 WILLIAM CLARK DATED: May 20] 1 By~ Rachel Matteo~Boehm Holme Roberts Owen LLP Attorneys for Clark UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON _rf DATED: 2011 By - . Name Sh Spung Title eetor of Claim Services ur ff' 4. oareo; May QL, 2011 ey Louis D. Pete son I-Iillis Clark Martin and Peterson P..S, Attorneys for University of Washington Page 4 #58418 vi . -N. Payment of current is due 30 day 1% per month, THIS 1111112010 1111512010 1111612010 1111712010 1111712010 1111312010 1111912010 1111912010 1112212010 KJ NEC NEC MEC KJH KJ LDP MEC MEC 1112312010 MEC 3.50 1.00 0.10 0.20 0.90 1.40 1.00 2.50 2.30 0.50 2.00 Prepare pi Re'v1ew se Teiepherxe Review ee regarding. Review ee Analysis Te1ephee Review sn with K. Review an Teiephene discovery Review er: Previews Due Payments and Trust Apyiieetie TGTAL AMUUNT DUE Payment mfcurrent amounts is due 39 days 1% per month. THISSTP FOR i2f'3f'2{Jl{} l2f'i4f20i0 1211612010 IZFZUHZUIU KJH KJH KJH LDP MEC MEC KJH MEC LDP MEC LDP MEC Review Cerreeper Review ec Emeiie Review ee regard in Review ee Aeelyeie I Review er Meeting 'v Prepare fe ee wee pen Aneiyeie 1 Review ee were Fetersea Mary E. Crege Kathleen 1. He?rieli Tetai Cu LDT Leng Diataaee Tekeph PSY Tetai Ca Payment nfcuwant amounts is due 30 day: 1% pm' month. TEES ST: 00008 F012 .1-.F 1-FF IISIZGEI if' I M201 i if IEIZUII if 13201 I if i4f'201i if' 1412011 KJH KJH MEC MEC MEC LDP MEC LDP MEC Review eti Meme te ii Revievv ee Review ee eeme; dee! Drefi eezve Teiepherie Revise eeic regereiing i Teiephene eneiyeie re Teleehene preduetiei Nyrep reg; LEILUII 2J'if'20ii 2f"i'f'20ii 2r'9f'20li 2f1if'2Oii iw.UU 0.20 9.50 0.30 LSU ?1.60 2. i Ei 2.-40 i .50 KEVEQW GUI Teiepheiie Overetreet Revise pre Emeile witl Review ee; seine; revi: Review ef G. Overetn Finalize pr: eeives penn Review e.n= Review elim Review elix Ja' 1 3123281 I 3f'22f'2E}I I 3? 231 20% i 31231201 219201 I 1 312912011 31' 301201 1 41' H201 I LDP MEC LDP MEC MEC MEC LDP LDP PLE 'li' ill! is I Mettee-Bc Prep ere fe eettlement regarding Review dr; Revise eet Drei eerrc Settle1'z1en1 Teiephenf with K. Ng, Telephenf Settlemem amafzuf: Mm; mu ee sette be; >>fI>>f'29f'2Oii MEC 0.40 Review ee Loaia D. Petersen Mary E. Crege Alexander M. Wa Kathleen J. Hedrick Total Cu ONE, Rea eareh Current Ste:temer1tTetei Beken ee Due Peymerrte end Trust Appkieetie TQTAL AMOUNT QUE Payment mfcurrermt amounts is me 30 days 1% per THIS STE FUR SFI H2011 5fi6f'20ii 511152011 I 5f'19x'2UiI 5.f'3if2Uii MEC MEC MEC KIH MEC KJH MEC LDP MEC 0.90 0.30 I .UU 0.30 1.00 LIU 0.20 0.50 0.30 Review sn settlement Prepare fei settlement Revise sets Revise sei ssme; desi with K. Ny Rev ievv de Revievv ee Rev ievv en Rev ievv ee ties Payment mfcurrent is due 30 days per month. THIS STP FOR UI HLUII 6f3f'20ii 1.5! 3f'2Ui 1 6f'9f20Ii 6f'i3f'20ii LDP MEC KJH MEC IGH MEC KJH MEC -JU 0.50 2.20 LSU 2.50 2.10 3.60 1.60 I .50 2.00 ILE 1' ?5 Lili* Rev iew Ieti Review an Review eii- Caaferene eeaasel ar Analysis if Teiephane teiepheae earreepan= Prepare rem Teiephaae Teiepheae regard ia with resea; Tata? Cul PGS Paataga PRK Parking PGY Phaiacapias LDT Long Distanca Talaphu Tatai Cm Pay ment mfuurrent amounts is due 30 days 1% per month. THIS PGH MEC U-JU regarding 0.20 Revievv ee Nlerjf E. Crege T-sie! Cui MSG Messenger Delivery PIL Filing Fees AIR Air Express Delivery PRR Perkin Tetei C111 Payment ufcurmnt amounts is Clue 30 days 1% per month. THISSTF FOR Ctuireni Fees Current Expenses Current inieresi Current Statement Tefei Helen ee Due Payments end Trust Applieetia TUTAL AMOUNT DUE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT This Settlement Agreement is entered into by William Clark ("Clari<") and the University of Washington ("University") and is effective as ofthe date the last-signing patty signs the Agreement (the "Effective Date"). Clark and the University are referred to herein individually as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties" RECITALS A, WHEREAS, on January I, 2030, Clark tiled a Complaint for Disclosure of Public Records against the University in King County Superior Court, captioned Clark v. University of Case No, I0-2-02697-5 SEA (the and B. WHEREAS, the Lawsuit is an enforcement action brought under the Washington Public Records Act pertaining to three PRA requests made by Clark, one ofwhich was made in August 2007 (Request No. 07~l 0761) and the other two of which were made in July 2009 (Request Nos, 09-11697 and 09-l 1723) (collectively, the "Underlying PRA Reqnests"); and C. WHEREAS, the University has filed its Answer in the Lawsuit, denying liability; and D, WHEREAS, the Parties wish to enter into this Agreement to resolve the Lawsuit forthe purpose of' avoiding further litigation. TERMS OF AGREEMENT In consideration ofthe mutual promises and covenants contained in this Agreement, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Delivery of Research Data; Permitted Disclosures; Confidentiality Delivery of Research Data - On Uctober 25, 201 0, the University provided Clark with an electronic (SPSS) tile (Bates No. UWPROD009) that contained raw data for a study that was the basis ofan August 2007 article in The Journal of Pediatrics entitled "Associations Between Media Viewing and Language Development In Children Under Age 2 Years" (the "2007 from which the birth dates were redacted ("2007 Study Data"). No later than seven (7) days after the Effective Date, the University, through its counsel, will provide to Clarlc an electronic (SPSS) version ofthe 2007 Study Data that was previously produced to Clark, except that the data fields showing each individual study participant's month ofbirth ("cdemo2a"), day of birth ("cderno2b"), and date of birth shall be left unredacted, The University may also redact participant telephone numbers and alternate telephone numbers, regardless ofwliether' those fields were previously redacted. Unless otherwise specified herein, the redacted and unredacted fields shall be the same as the SPSS iile provided to Clark on October 25, 20i0, Birth Dates; Permitted Disclosures Clark agrees that he will maintain the birth dates ofthe individual participants in the 2007 Study as confidential and will not disclose those birth dates except as expressly provided herein, Clark may disclose the birth dates to his administrative assistants, attorneys and researchers hired by Clark to review, Page I #58418 vi sal SF-02131 - 1 PRR 201 -00450 analyze, and/or publish their own conclusions about the research data, as Well as the employees and/or agents ofsaid attorneys and researchers Associates"), provided that Clark's Associates agree in writing to be bound by this confidentiality provision as well as to the provisions of' paragraph Notwithstanding the foregoing, the University agrees and expressly acknowledges that Clark and Clark's Associates may disclose any data transformations created by those birth dates to anyone they choose, so long as the transformations cannot be used in and of themselves to determine the specific birth dates or identities ofthe 2007 Study participants. By way of example, although Clark could not disclose the birth dates of individual 2007 Study participants to anyone other than Clark's Associates, he may disclose transformations reflecting the age-in-rnonths or age-in~days of individual 2007 Study participants to anyone he chooses, so long as those transformations do not themselves disclose the birth dates of individual study participants and do not otherwise identify individual 2007 Study participants. No Efforts to Contact Study Participants Clark expressly acknowledges he has no interest in or intent to contact the individual participants ofthe 2007 Study. Clark and Clarl<'s Associates agree not to use the birth dates to attempt to identify such participants. lf`Clark or Clark's Associates should learn the identity of an individual 2007 Study participant, Clark and Clark's Associates agree not to attempt to contact the participant or the participant's family, and will not disclose or publish that participant's identity, 2. Telephone Numbers. Clark and Clark's Associates agree that they will not use or disclose the telephone numbers inadvertently produced by the University to Clark during discovery.. No later than seven (7) days alter the Effective Date, the University, through its counsel, will provide written notification to Clark ofthose documents it believes contain 2007 Study participants' telephone numbers ("Telephone Number Within seven (7) days after Telephone Number Notification, Clark, through his counsel, will either return those documents to the University or confirm in writing that he has deleted or destroyed the telephone numbers. Upon Clark's written request within seven (7) days after Telephone Number Notification, the University, through its counsel, will provide redacted documents that do not contain 2007 Study participant telephone numbers no later than seven (7) days after receipt by the University of Clarl<'s request. 3. Stipulated Protective Order. A Stipulated Protective Order was entered in this case on February 14, 2011 ("Protective Order"). The University agrees and expressly acknowledges that upon dismissal with prejudice of the Lawsuit, the Protective Order shall have no further force and effect, and any restrictions on Clark's or Associates' use or disclosure of birth dates or information that could be used to determine the date of birth of' participants in the 2007 Study shall be solely limited only to those restrictions expressly set forth in this Agreement. 4. Settlement Payment. No later than fourteen (14) days after the Effective Date, the University shall pay to Clark the total sum of one hundred seventy-five thousand dollars ($175,000) to reimburse him for a portion ofhis attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the Lavvsu it. This settlement payment shall be made via check payable to William Clark, who will provide a completed tax identification statement to the University's counsel no later than seven (7) days after the Effective Date. Page 2 #58418 vl sci' SF-02132 PRR-2011 00450 5. Dismissal of Lawsuit. No later than seven (7) days after receipt by Clark of the settlement payment specified in paragraph 4, the parties shall tile with the Court a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice. The Stipulation and Order shall specify that the Protective Order entered on February 14, 2011 will be dissolved upon dismissal ofthe case. A copy of the Stipulation and Order is attached as Exhibit A. 6. Release. Each Party, acting freely and voluntarily, hereby releases and forever discharges the other Party, and any of that other Par/ty's officers, directors, control persons, agents, representatives, employees, and attorneys, from any and all causes of action, claims, damages, liabilities, and demands of any nature whatsoever, whether known or unltnevvn, arising out of (1) the Universitj/'s compliance with the Public Records Act or other applicable law or its alleged lack thereof in its responses to the Underlying PRA Requests; or (2) Clarl<'s Complaint in this Lawsuit. 7. Entire Understanding. This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding of the Parties and may be modified only by written instrument executed by all Parties. Aside from the express language of this Agreement and the Protective Order, there are no other agreements, express or implied, between the Parties in this case. 8. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon the Parties and their respective heirs, successors, and assigns.. 9. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws ofthe State of Washington without regard to the choice oflaw principles thereoi Venue for any lawsuit arising out ofthis Agreernent shall be in King County, Washington. All Parties expressly consent tojurisdiction in King County, Washington. 10. Captions. Any captions to the paragraphs in this Agreement are solely forthe convenience ofthe Parties, are not part of this Agreement, and shall not he used for the interpretation of, or for a determination ofthe validity of, this Agreement or any portion thereof. II Page .3 #58438 vl sat" SF-02133 PRR-2011 00450 11. Counterparts and Facsimile Transmission. This Agteement may be executed in counterparts, and signatures on the Agreement may be transmitted via facsimile or electronic transmission. Cozmterparts shell be considered one and the same Agreement, and signatures on facsimile or electronic copies shall have the same force and effect as original signatures, IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the ies executed this Agreement on the dates set forth below, DATED: Ma;/2; 2011 WILLIAM CLARK DATED: May 2011 By chel atteo-Boe Holme Roberts Owen. LLP Attorneys for Clark UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON DATED: May M, 2011 By Name Shari Spung Title Director of Claim Services DATED: May 2011 By Louis D. Peterson Hillis Clark Martin and Peterson P.S, Attorneys for University of Washington Page 4 #58438 vt saf SF-02134 PRR-2011-00450 11. and Facsimile Transmission. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, and signatures on the Agreement may be transmitted via facsimile or electronic transmissionr Counterparts shall be considered one and the same Agreement, and signatures on facsimile or electronic copies shall have the same force and effect as original signatures.. ITN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties executed zhis Agreement on the dates set forth below. DATED: may 2011 WILLIAM CLARK DATED: May 20] 1 By~ Rachel Matteo~Boehm Holme Roberts Owen LLP Attorneys for Clark UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON Name Sh Spung Title eetor of Claim Services ur ff' 4. _ff DATED: 2011 By -. oareo; May QL, 2011 ey Louis D. Pete son I-Iillis Clark Martin and Peterson P..S, Attorneys for University of Washington Page 4 #58418 vi SF-02135 PRR-2011-00450 Law0fHees HILLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERS A Profess?ona1Servies Corporation 122% Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101-2925 (206) 623-3745 Faes :mile (206) 623-7789 Becember 30, 2010 Statement I 19079 University of Washington Karin Nyrop Attorneys General Office UW Box 359475 Seattle, WA 98195 STATEMENT SUMMARY Current Previous Payments and Total Matter Statement Tota} Balance Due Trust Applications Amount Due Clark v. Pubiic Records Request 6,281.10 0.00 0.00 6,281.10 6,281.10 Payment of current amounts is due 30 days from the date shown above. Interest accrues on past due amounts at the rate of 1% per month. Please refer to statement number when making payment. 91-0370196 'rms STATEMENT Ma wot messes sos vvr-1101-1 HAVE Nor ver BEEN eaten. SF-02136 PRR-2011-00450 HS 1 Statement 119079 Page: I-li Law Offices LLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERSON A Professional Service Corporation 1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98101-2925 (206) 623-1745 Facsimile (206) 623-7789 December 30, 2010 University of Washington Matter ID 12662046 Karin Nyrop Statement Number 1 19079 Attorneys General Office Services 'Ihrough ll/30f20l0 UW Box 359475 Seattle, WA 98195 Clark v. Public Records Request 11 11/3/2010 11/4/2010 LDP 11/4/2010 MEC ll/5/2010 MEC 11/8/2010 KJH 11/10/2010 KJH KJH ll/l5/2010 ll/i6/2010 MEC MEC 11/17/2010 KJH 11/18/2010 KJH ll/19/2010 LDP 11!l9/2010 MEC 11/22/:zcio MEC 11f23/2010 MEC 11/24/2010 MEC 1.00 1.50 2.50 1.60 1.10 1.10 3.50 1.00 0.10 0.20 0.90 1.40 L00 2.50 2.80 0.50 2.00 PRUFESSKONAL SERVICES Review case tile in preparation for meeting with K. Nyrop and B. Clark Review of pleadings; meeting with K. Nyrop, W. Clark; analysis re issues Conference with K. Nyrop and B. Clark; research recent caselavv regarding public records issues Review correspondence and recent appellate case law Organize pleadings for M. Crego review Review client docnments Prepare pleadings index; review tiles frorn Attorney Generals office Review and analyze case materials; review correspondence regarding same Telephone conference with K. Nyrop Review correspondence from G. Overstreet; telephone conference with K. Nyrop regarding same Review correspondence file Analysis of discovery correspondence Telephone conference with K. Nyrop; analysis re settlement strategy Review and analyze discovery issues; prepare for and participate in telephone conference with K. Nyrop regarding discovery and settlement issues Review and anaiyzc case file Telephone conference with G. Overstreet; draft correspondence regarding same; review - discovery issues Review and anaiyze files regarding discovery and litigation SF-02137 PRR-2011-00450 HS 2 Statement# 119079 Page; 2 Law Offices HILLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERSON A Professionaf Service Corporation 1222 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 981002925 (206) 623-1745 Facsimile (206) 6233739 I MEC 1.30 Review and analyze correspondence Louis D. Peterson 2.50 hours at 385.00 $/hour Mery E. Crego 15,50 hours et 280.00 $/hour Kathleen J. Hedrick 8.00 hours as 120.00 $/'hour Totai Current Fees MSG Messenger Delivery PCY Photocopies Total Current EXPENSES xpenses 962,50 4,340.00 960.00 6,262.50 15 .00 3 .60 18.60 0 Current Fees Current Expenses Current Interest Current Statement Tote! Previous }3al_ance Due Payments end Trust Applications TUTAL AMOUNT DUE MATFER SUMMARY 6,262.50 18.60 0.00 6,281.10 0.00 0.00 6,281.10 SF-02138 PRR-2011-00450 HS 3 Law Offices HILLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERSON A Professional Services Corporation 1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 981052925 (206) 623-2745 Facsimiie (206) 6233789 January 31, 2011 University of Washington Statement #t 120214 Karin Nyrop Attorney's General Office UW Box 359475 Seattle, WA 93195 STATEMENF SUMMARY Current Previous Payments and Total Matter Statement Total Balance Due Trust Applications Amount Due Ciark v. Public Records Request 8,702.46 6,281.10 0.00 19,983.56 19,983.56 Payment ofcurrent amounts is due 30 days ttomthe date shown above. Interest accrues on past due amounts at the rate of 1% per month. Please refer to statement number when making payment. F.I.D. #1 91~0870'796 THES STATEMENT MAY NOT ENCLUDE EXPENSE IT EMS POR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILLED. SF-02139 PRR-2011-00450 HS 4 Statement# ?20214 Page: I LawOf1?ices LLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERSON A Professionaf Service Corporation ?222 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98i0l~2925 (206) 623-2745 Facsimile (206) 6233789 January 31, 2011 University of Washington Matter ID 12662046 Karin Nyrop Statement Number ITZOZI4 Attorney's General Office Services Through UW Box359475 Seattle, WA 98195 Clark v. - Public Records Request 12/2/2010 121'2/2010 i2i'I3/2010 12/16/2010 12/20/2010 MEC LDP MEC MEC KJH KJH KJH LDP MEC MEC KJH MEC LDP MEC LDP MK PROFES IONAL WVICES 3.50 Review and anaiym discovery status and issues raised by counsel; tekephone conference regarding same 3.00 Telephone conferences with client; oftice conference with K. Nyrop; meeting with Overstreet, R. tel.) re discovery issues, re settiement 3.00 Review and analyze case files and oiient documents; prepare for meeting with plaintiffs; attend conference with K. Nyrop and G. Overstreet 3.50 Review and analyze client documents and correspondence; draft correspondence to clients; analyze litigation strategy and resolution options 0.70 Review tile correspondence 0.30 Correspondence to A. re nie correspondence 0.70 Review document production re consent forms 1.00 Emails from and to ciient; teiepiione conference with K. Nyrop 0.60 Review correspondence regarding settlement; teiephone conference with K. Nyrop regarding same; review client documents reiated to same 0.50 Review and analyze client records i.l0 Analysis ofdocnment production 1.00 Review and analyze client documents 1.50 Meeting with ciients; iegal advice re settlement strategy 1.50 Prepare for and participate in conference with clients regarding Eitigation Strategy; correspondence regarding same 1.00 Analysis re document issues, settlement issues 3.50 Review and analym ciient documents; research and analysis regarding issues raised by SF-02140 PRR-2011-00450 HS 5 Statement 120214 12/20i'20l0 l2/21/2010 i2/Zi/20l0 I2/2lf20l0 l2/'23/2010 12/23/2010 2010 l2f29!2010 12/29f'20l0 LLIS CLARK MARTIN Page: 2 Law Offices PETERSON A Professional Service Oorporaticn 1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 9330]-2925 (206)623-1145 Facsimile (206) 62397789 same KJH 2.30 Review document production with C. Taylor KJH L20 Analysis ofstudy data produced LDP 0.50 Analysis re legal issues; telephone conference with K. Nyrop MEC 4.00 Research and analyze legal issues and client documents; telephone conference with clients regarding same; draft correspondence regarding same; review and analyze correspondence Hom opposing counsel; review and analyze discovery issues KIH L80 Analysis of document production LDP 0.30 Telephone conference with K. Nyrop MEC 2.50 Review and analyze client documents; prepare for and participate in telephone conferences with clients; research and analysis regarding same MEC 4.50 Review and analyze client documents; prepare for and participate in telephone conferences with clients; research and analysis regarding same 0.70 Analysis of document production LDP 0.50 Emails from and to client; telephone conference with K. Nyrop KJH 2.20 Revisions to document database MEC 1.50 Review and analyze 'client documents; legal research and analysis regarding confidentiality issues; telephone conference with K. Nyrop; draft correspondence to clients LDP 1.00 Emails and telephone conferences with client; legal advice re settlement issues; voicemail and email with G. Overstreet MEC 2.50 Review and analyze legal and settlement issues; conferences regarding same; research regarding confidentiality issues Louis D. Peterson 8.80 hours at 385.00 $/hour 3,388.00 Mary E. Crego 32. I0 hours at 280.00 S/hour 8,988.00 Kathleen J. Hedriclc ll.00 hotns at l20.00 $!hour l,320.00 Total Current Fees 13,696.00 EXP SFS LDT Long Distance Telephone 4.56 PCY Photocopies 1.90 Total Current Expenses 6.46 SF-02141 PRR-2011-00450 statement 120214 0 Page: 3 Law Offices HILLIS CLARK MARTIN A Professionai Service Corporation 122] Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattie, WA 9810162925 (206) 623~17?i5 Facsimile (206) 623-7789 PETERSON Current Fees Current Expenses Current Interest Curreni Statement Total Previous Bakence Due Payments and Trust Appiicaiions TOTAL ANIUUNT DUE MATTIIR SUMMARY 13 ?596.00 6.46 0.00 1 3,702,46 6,281 0 0.00 's 19,933.56 SF-02142 PRR-2011-00450 HS 7 Law Offices HILLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERSON A Professional Services Corporation 1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seatele, WA 98201-2925 (206) 6234745 Facsimile (206) 62351789 May 31, 201i Statement #z 124?55 University of Washington Karin Nyrop Attorney's General Office UW Box 359475 Seattie, WA 98195 STATEMENT SUMNIARY Current Previous Payments and Total Matter Statement Total Baianee Due Trust Applications Amount Due Clerk v. - Public Records Request 25,872.71 19,983.56 25, 872.71 25,872.71 Payment ofeurrent amounts is due 30 days from the cite shown above. Interest accrues on past due amounts at the rate of 1% per month. Please refer to statement number when making payment. 31.9. 91-0870796 THIS MAY NOT EXPENSE ITEMS FOR WHICH WE I-IAVEE NOT YET BEEN BILLED. SF-02143 PRR-2011-00450 Statement ii 124755 Page: Law Offices LLIS CLARK PETERSON A Professional Service Corporation ?221 Second Avenue, Suite 500 seattle, WA 981014925 (206) 623>>l 745 Facsimile (206) 623-7789 May 3l, 201i University of Washington Matter IIT) i2662.046 Karin Nyrop Statement Number l24'755 Attorneys General Services Through 4/30/'20ll UW Box 359475 Seattle, WA Clark st Public Records Request SWVICIES U4/20ll lf6/2011 l/7!20ll l/10/20ll l/1 lf20l l!12f20ll l/1219011 LDP EC KJH Kill LDP KJH KJH MEC MEC MEC LDP MK LDP MEC 2.00 6.50 0.90 L20 0.50 1.40 0.60 0.20 0.90 0.50 0.50 L20 L00 1.80 Telephone conferences with client; telephone conference with G. Overstreet and R. Mateo-Boehm; correspondence to and from Ct Overstreet and R. Telephone conference with opposing counsel regarding settlement; draft motion for temporary restraining order and protective order and related declarations; research and analysis regarding same Analysis of client client documents previously produced Update document database Email to G. Overstreet; analysis re strategy Review study data production Memo to M. Crego re ofsuwey data Review correspondence from G. Overstreet Review correspondence from G. Overstreet; telephone conference with K. Nyrop regarding same; drait response to same Drait correspondence to G. Overstreet; conference regarding same Telephone conferences with client; analysis re legal issues; revision of letter to opposing counsel Revise and finalize correspondence to G. Gverstreet; telephone conference with K. Nyrop regarding some Telephone conferences with K. Nyrop; review ofcorrespondence from G. Overstreet; analysis re strategy Telephone conference with K. Nyrop; draft correspondence to clients regarding document production issues; review correspondence from G. Overstreet; telephone conference with K. Nyrop regarding same; review and analyze settlement strategy SF-02144 PRR-2011-00450 Statement 124755 Page: 2 l/I9/2011 l/20/201i U20/201i I/21/201i i/24/20ii U24/20il I/24/201i i/25/201i I I/25/201i if26f2Oii i/'26/2Oii i/'27/201i i/28/2011 2'Jlf20}i Zfll/201i MEC LDP MEC AMW LDP MEC AMW LDP MEC AMW LDP EC LDP LDP MEC LDP MEC LDP MEC LDP MEC MEC KJH KJH LDP Law Offices HILLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERSON A Professional Service Corporation 1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattie, WA 98103-2925 (206) 623-1745 Facsimile (206) 623-7789 Teiephone conference with D. Christalds; review client documents and draft correspondence regarding same Email from D. Christaids; telephone conference with K. Nyrop; anaiysis re settlement Review and anaiyae correspondence; teiephone conference with K. draft motion for protective order; review discovery responses and client documents; draft and revise preliminary witness disciosure Legal research re inadvertent disclosure; research re protective order Telephone conference with K. Nyrop Telephone conference with K. Nyrop regarding discovery issues; revise and finalize primary witness iist; review primary witness iist of plaintiff Legal research re inadvertent disclosure, remedies, and procedure; draft motion for protective order Teiephone conference with G. Overstreet; analysis re settlement tennsneet; revision of draft protective order; teiephone conference with K. Nyrop Review and anaiyze protective order; draft stipulated protective order Prepare motion for protective order; iegai research re scope of privileges that may be asserted under P.R.C.P. Meeting with K. Nyrop, B. Van Ess; revision of settlement owner; revision of proposed protective order; voicemail to G. Overstreet Conference with K. Nyrop and B. Van Ess regarding discovery and negotiation issues; revise draft stipulated protective order Teiephone conference with G.Ove1streetre settlement and protective order issues Review ofemaiis and letter 'dom G. Overstreet; review revised draft protective order Review correspondence from G. Overstreet; draft correspondence to eiients regarding same Telephone conference with K. Nyrop; revision ofdrait protective order; ernaiis to G. Overstreet Revise protective order; draft correspondence regarding same Emails with client; emails with Overstreet; review revised protective order Review correspondence from G. Overstreetg drait correspondence to K. Nyrop regarding same; revise stipulated protective order Review of correspondence iiom G. Overstreet; teiepiione conference with K. Nyrop; email to G. Overstreet re settiement; ernaii from G. Overstreetg email to client Finalize protective order; review and respond to correspondence regarding same; review correspondence regarding settlement issues Review and anaiyze discovery and iitigation strategy issues Review client production for privilege Review client production for privilege Teiephone conferences with S. Spung, K. Moe, N. Arkans, C. Taylor, Es Saunders,-K. Nyrop SF-02145 PRR-2011-00450 Statement E2-4755 Page: 2/16/2011 2/l7l2{3ll 2!l 8/2Oll 2/ 8/2011 2./22/2011 2/22/2011 2/24/201 2/2812011 3/'I/20li 3/1/201 3/7/'20ll 3/'7/20ll 3! 3/2011 3/ 9/20l1 3/9/2011 3/ 14/2011 3/22/2011 3/22/20] I 3/23/201 3/23/201 3/24/201 3/29/20] I 3/29/201 I 3/ 30/ 201 4/ H201 MEC LDP KJH AMW LDP Mac LDP Mac Mac Mao LDP Mac LDP Mer: LDP Los Mac MEC LDP MEC LDP MEC l\/1C LDP MEC LDP LDP Law Offices HILLES CLARK MARTIN PETERSON A Professional Service Corporation 1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500 seattle, WA 9sre1~2925 (206) 623~i 745 Facsimile (266) 62317789 re settlement issues; telephone conference with K. Nyrop; email to plainti??s counsel Telephone conference with clients regarding settlement and discovery is sues; review correspondence regarding same; analyze legal issues in preparation for same Review email from G. Oveistreet; telephone conference with G. Overstreet and R. Matteo~Boehrrl re settlement issues, re continuance; telephone conference with K. Nyrop Review client documents for priv liege Review supplemental production re inadvertently produced birthdates and telephone numbers Emails with opposing counsel; revision of letter re disclosures Revise correspondence to G. Overstreet; linalize same Review letter iifoin G. Overstreet; analysis re documents and settlement issues Review correspondence from G. Overstreet; analyze response to same Review and respond to correspondence Born plaintifi?s counsel Revise dralt settlement agreement Revision of draft settlement agreement Draft and revise settlement agreement; draft correspondence regarding sarne Telephone conference with G. telephone conference with client Telephone conference with K. Nyrop regarding draft settlement agreement; revise same Emails with G. Review settlement letter from G. Ovenstreet; email to client Review and analyze correspondence from plaintiffre attorneys' fees and settlement Review and analyze attorneys' fees invoices from plaintiff Analysis re settlement issues; telephone conference with G. Overstreet and Matteo-Boehm re settlement; telephone conference with li. Nyrop Prepare for and participate in telephone conference with plaintit"t"s counsel regarding settlement; review and analyze case law regarding attorneys' fees issues; conferences regarding sarne Review draft settlement agreement Revise settlement agreement; draft correspondence regarding same Draft cornespondence to opposing counsel Settlement negotiations with G. Overstreet, R. Matteo>>Boeh in; analysis re settlement issues; telephone conference with K. Nyrop Telephone conference with opposing counsel regarding settlement; telephone conference with K. Nyrop regarding same Telephone conferences with R. Matteo-Boehm; settlement negotiations Settlement negotiations with R. Matteo-Boehm SF-02146 PRR-2011-00450 Statement ii 124755 Page: 4/6/20iI 408/20ii 4/13/2011 4/14/201i fi/18/2011 4/18/20il 4/i9/20ii 4/19/2011 4/i9/2011 4/21/201i 4/22/201 i 4/25/20i 1 4f25/201 I 4/26/201i -4/261' 201 1 4/27/201 4/28!20i 4/29/201 1 Law Offices LLIS CLARK MARTEN PETERSON A Professional Service Corporation 1221 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattie, WA 9810]-2925 (206) 623-1745 Facsimile (206) 623-7789 LDP 0.75 Settlement negotiations with Matteo~Boehrn; telephone conference with K. Nyrop LDP 0.50 Settlement negotiations with R. Matteo~Boeh1n MEC 0.20 Drait correspondence to K. Nyrop regarding settlement 1 MEC 010 Telephone conference with K. Nyrop regarding settiement issues LDP 1.00 Review email from R. Matteo-Boehm; revision ofdraft settlement agreement MEC 0.80 Review plaintiffs revisions to settlement agreement; conference regarding same; draft correspondence regarding same LDP 0.75 Telephone conference with K. Nyrop; revision oiidrait agreement MEC 2.00 Telephone conference with K. Nyrop regarding settiernent agreement; revise same; draft correspondence regarding revised agreement MEC 1.10 Revise settlement agreement; conferences regarding terms of same MEC 0.20 Telephone conference with K. Nyrop regarding settiement agneement;_revise same; draft regarding same MEC 0.10 Revise settienrent agreement LDP 0.50 Analysis re settlement issues; teiephone conferences with K. Nyrop; telephone conference with K. Moe MEC 0.70 Telephone conference with K. Nyrop and K. Moe regarding settlement agreement; draft correspondence to ciients regarding same LDP 0.50 Telephone conference with Dr. D. Christakis; revision of settlement agreement MEC 0.70 Teiephone conference with D. Christairis re settiernent agreement; revise same; draft correspondence regarding same LDP 0.25 Voicemail to R. Matteo-Boehm; email to R. Matteo-Boehm MEC L50 Review correspondence regarding settiement; review data records reiated to redacted data . set to he provided to confirm consistent redactions MEC 0.40 Review correspondence from opposing couns ei and revised settiernent agreement; drait correspondence to K.Ny1'op Louis D. Peterson 28.75 hours at 385.00 S/hour 1i.06S.75 Mary E. Crego 36.80 hours at 280.00 iifhour 10,304.00 Alexander M. Wu i6.}0 hours at 200.00 $/hour 3,220.00 Kathleen J. Hedrick 9.90 hours at 120.00 $/hour I,l38.00 Total Current Fees 25,780.75 EXPENSE ONL Oniine Research Access Charge 14.24 SF-02147 PRR-2011-00450 HS 1 2 Statement 124755 Page: 5 Law Offices CLARK MARTIN PETERSON A Professienai Service Corporation 122% Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 9810]-2925 (206) 623-3745 Facsimile (206) 623-7709 POS Postage PKK Parking PCY Ph otoeepies LDT Long Distance Teiephone MSG Messenger Dekivery Total Current Expenses 2.44 3.00 3.50 28.78 40.00 9E .96 1- 3/18/2011 3/21/2011 Total Payments PAYMENTS Check Number A101714 A102354 13,702.46 6,23 1 E0 19,983.56 mmu Current Fees Current Expens es Current Interest Current Statement Total Prev tous Bakance Due Payments and Trust Applications TUTAL AMOUNT DUE MATTER UMMARY 25,780.75 91.96 0.00 25,872.71 19,983.56 19,983.56 25,872.71 SF-0214.9 PRR-2011-00450 HS 1 3 Law Offices HILLIS CLARK A Professional Services Corporation 122i Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 9810]-2925 (206) 623-1745 Facsimile (206) 623-7789 MARTIN PETERSON June 30, 2011 University of Washington Statement fi: 124972 Katha Ny rep Attomey's General Office UW Box 359-4?5 Seattle, WA 98195 STATHVIENT SUMMARY Cuxrent Previous ?ayments and Total Matter Statement Totai Balance Due Trust Applications Amount Due Clark v. Public Records Request 2,392.75 25,872.71 . 0.00 28,265.46 28,265.46 Payment ofeurrent amounts is clue 30 days Iiomthe date shown above. Interest accmes on past due amounts at the rate of 1% per month. Please refer to statement number when making payment. Fil). THIS STATEMENT MAY NOT INCLUDE EXPENSE ITEMS FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILLED. SF-02149 PRR-2011-00450 HS 1 4 Statement 124972 Page: 1 Law Offices HILLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERSON A Professional Service Corporation l221 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 98201-2925 {206) 623-1745 Facsimile (206) 623-7789 June 30, 2011 University of Washington Matter ID i2662.046 Karin Nyrop Statement Number Attorneys General Oftice Services Through 5/3l/20li UW Box 359475 Seattle, WA 98195 Ciark tn - Public Records Request 5!2!20l I LDP 0.25 Revision _of settlement agreement 5/2/201i MEC 1.40 Review correspondence from R. Matteo Boehm regarding settiement agreement; review and analyze draft agreement; telephone conference with K. Nyrop regarding same- 5/2/2011 KJH 0.30 Review client production - 5/3/2011 MEC 0.30 Review correspondence regarding settlement terms 5/ 3/201 I KH-I 1.10 Review document production 5/6/20ll MEC 0.20 Drait correspondence to opposing counsel regarding settlement terms 5/il/2011 MEC 0.90 Review and analyze client doucments and previous document productions regarding settlement issues 5/12/20ll MEC 0.80 Prepare for and participate in conference with K. Nyrop and R. Shimabakuro regarding settlement materials to be delivered 5/13/201i MEC 1.00 Revise settlement agreement and stipulation; draft correspondence regarding Same KJH 0.80 Analysis of document production 5/17/201 MEC 1.00 Revise and iinaliae settlement agreement; review and respond to correspondence regarding same; dratt corres pondence to opposing counsel regarding same; telephone conference with K. Nyrop; review protected documents to fuitill tenns of settlement agreement 5/17/2011 KJH l.l0 Review document production and memo re data charts 5/19/2011 MEC 0.20 Review correspondence from R. Matteo regarding settlement; draft response to same; drait correspondence to K. Nyrop regarding same 5/31/20ti LDP 0.50 Review and execute final settlement agreement 5/302011 MEC 0.30 Review correspondence nom draft response to same; draft correspondence to client; finalize settlement agreement SF-02150 PRR-2011-00450 Statement 124972 Page: 2 Law Offices CLARK MARTIN PETERSON Louis D. Peterson Mary E. Crego Kathleen J. Hedrick A Professionai Service Corporation 1223 Second Avenue, Suite 500 Seattle, WA 925103-2925 (206}623~1745 Facsimiie {206) 623-7789 0.75 hours at 385.00 S/hour 6.10 hours at 280.00 $/hour 3.30 hours at 120.00 $/hour Total Current Fees 288.75 },708.00 396.00 2,392.75 Current Fees Current Expenses Client Interest Current Statement Total Previous Balance Due MA'l"f% UMMARY Payments and Trust Applications TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 2,392.75 0.00 0.00 2,392.75 25,872.71 0.00 2s,z6s.45 SF-02151 PRR-2011-00450 HS 0 0 0 1 6 LawO?`fices HILLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERS A Professionai Services Corporation E221 Second Avenue, Suite 560 Seattle, WA 981052925 (206) 623-1745 Facsimile (206) 6233789 July 31, 2011 Statement #z 126079 Univelaity ofWashington Karin Nyrop Attorneys General Office UW Box 359475 Seattle, WA 98195 STATEMENT SUEVHVIARY Current Previous Payments and Total Matter Statement Total Balance Due Trust Applications Amount Due Clark v. - Public Records Request 7,461.98 28,265.46 25,872.71 9,854.73 9,854.73 Payment of current amounts is due 30 days aomthe date shown above. Interest accrues on past due amounts at the rate of 1% per month. Please refer to statement number when making pay ment. THIS STATEMENT MAY NOT INCLUDE EXPENSE ZTEMS FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILLED. SF-02152 PRR-2011-00450 Statement 126079 Page: 1 Law Offices HILLIS CLARK MARTIN PETERSON A Professional Service Corporation 1221 Second Avenue, Suite 508 Seattie, WA 9ti1Ul~292S (206) 623-1745 Facsimile (206) 623-7789 July 3i, 201i University ofwfashington Matter ID l2662.0