Case name: Belenski v. Jefferson County., WA, No. 92161-0, 2016.
Procedure: November 19, 2012, Belenski sued the county, alleging violations of the Public Records Act for his September 27, 2010 request for internet access logs (IALs) among other requests. Trial court held that IALs are not public record and dismissed. Belenski appealed. Court of appeals reversed, that the IALs are public records; however, ultimately dismissing on application of the statute of limitations. On for petition for review of the Court of Appeals decision to dismiss based on lapsed time on the catchall statute of limitations.
Facts: Belenski has sought public records since year 2000. Belenski sought a PRA request to inspect IALs from February 1, 2010 to September 27, 2010. County mailed response on September 27, 2010 stating “the County has no responsive records.” Belenski received it via email on October 5, 2010. This was the county’s final definitive response. Belenski filed his complaint two years after.
Issue: Which statute of limitations applies and when was it triggered.
Decision: Reversal on opinion of the two year catchall statute and applies the one year statue. Remand back to trial court to decide appropriateness of equitable tolling and to resolve any factual disputes given some concerns over County’s response.
Rule of Law: RCW 42.56.550(6) a one year statute of limitations for claims under PRA.
Reasoning: The County gave a final definitive response to Belenski’s request on October 4, 2010, indicating no such records. Regardless if the response was truthful or not the response was final and sufficient to provide notice that the County did not intend to further address the request. Belenski, if unsatisfied with the County’s timely response, should not have waited 25 months to bring a cause of action.
Dissent: Johnson J.—Concern over public agencies withholding records to the people and then waiting for the one-year statue to avoid disclosure. The County’s response to Belinski’s public records request was false and did not comply with the PRA, thus the statute of limitations does not apply and the lawsuit was in-turn timely. This court should embrace a rule prohibiting the government from enjoying the protections of the PRA’s statute of limitations when falsely responding to records requests. The PRA “Shall be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed,” RCW 42.56.030. The Court of Appeals should be reversed.