Washington’s Public Records Act (PRA) was designed to “ensure the sovereignty of the people and the accountability of the governmental agencies that serve them” by mandating public access to information concerning governmental conduct. Amren v. City of Kalama, 131 Wn.2d 15, 31, (1997).  

By statute, the free and open examination of public records is in the public interest and, accordingly, disclosure requirements under the PRA are liberally construed. RCW 42.56.550(3).

Over the years, adoption of technology by governmental agencies has exponentially increased the kinds of public records stored in electronic format, and a pair of recent Washington Court of Appeals decisions seems to indicate that basic electronic discovery principles apply to government agencies responding to PRA requests.

For example, it is well-established that metadata – data about data – can be subject to discovery in civil litigation.  In O’Neill v. City of Shoreline, 145 Wn.App. 913 (Div. 1, 2008), the appellate court extended that principle to governmental entities responding to PRA requests, finding that “metadata [that] contains information that relates to the conduct of government or the performance of a governmental function” is itself a “public record.” 

Taking production requirements one step further, the Washington Court of Appeals recently expanded the government’s obligations under the PRA to include production of documents in native electronic format.

In Mechling v. City of Monroe, 2009 WL 3430173 (Div. 1, 2009), Mechling requested that the City of Monroe provide certain email messages in electronic format rather than in hard copy. Relying on the City’s statutory duty to provide the “fullest assistance to inquirers,” the court held that “in general, an agency should provide electronic records in an electronic format if requested in that format.” The court remanded the case to the trial court for a determination of whether it is reasonable and feasible for the City to provide the documents in electronic format.

In light of these recent decisions, it appears that government agencies already facing staffing shortages due to budget cuts may also face the need to quickly learn how to identify, collect, review and produce electronic data in response to PRA requests.

As many civil litigators already know, this is not a simple task. It takes time to understand how documents are stored, how to preserve metadata, and ultimately how to produce electronic documents.

Without further guidance from the courts or the cooperation of PRA requestors, governmental entities may find themselves struggling to efficiently and economically comply with the electronic production requirements of O’Neill and Mechling.

*****