Cousins v. State

1

TERRY COUSINS, Petitioner, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON and DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondents.

No. 101769-3

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc

April 11, 2024

YU, J.

This case concerns Terry Cousins' efforts to obtain public records pertaining to her sister, who died in the custody of the Department of Corrections (DOC). Cousins commenced this action in January 2021, alleging that DOC's response to her public records request violated the Public Records Act (PRA), ch. 42.56 RCW. We must decide whether Cousins' PRA action is barred by the one-year statute of limitations, RCW 42.56.550(6). The answer is no. In accordance with Belenski v. Jefferson County, 186 Wn.2d 452, 378 P.3d 176 (2016), we hold that the limitations period did not start running until DOC issued its final "closing letter" in June 2021.

Belenski holds that the PRA's one-year limitations period starts to run when an agency provides its "final, definitive response" to a PRA request. Id. at 462. A sufficient closing letter from an agency can, and usually will, satisfy Belenski's final, definitive response test. However, an agency's use of the word "closed" is not determinative. Instead, a closing letter must be objectively "sufficient to put [a nonattorney requester] on notice" that the one-year limitations period had started running because the agency does "not intend to disclose records or further address [the] request." Id. at 461. To assess the sufficiency of a closing letter, courts and agencies should consult the attorney general's advisory model rules on public records compliance (Advisory Model Rules), ch. 44-14 WAC, and the guidance provided in today's opinion.

Here DOC produced multiple installments of records responsive to Cousins' PRA request and then sent Cousins a letter in January 2019 stating that her request was "now closed" (January 2019 closing letter). Clerk's Papers (CP) at 44. The January 2019 closing letter properly invited Cousins to ask follow-up questions, as all closing letters should do. See WAC 44-14-04006(1). Cousins promptly asked about specific records she believed were missing, and she repeatedly followed up when DOC initially failed to fully answer her questions. Eventually, DOC reopened Cousins' original PRA request to conduct an additional search, leading to the production of hundreds of pages of previously undisclosed responsive records followed by a second letter stating that the request was "now closed" in June 2021 (June 2021 closing letter). CP at 1440.

DOC argues that the January 2019 closing letter was its final definitive response, making Cousins' PRA action untimely. On this record, we cannot agree. Instead, we hold that the June 2021 closing letter was DOC's final, definitive response to Cousins' PRA request.

DOC was certainly not required to reopen Cousins' PRA request after issuing the January 2019 closing letter. Indeed, after issuing a sufficient closing letter, an agency may choose to answer follow-up questions by simply reiterating that the statute of limitations has started running because the agency does not intend to further address the request. In this case however, DOC selected a different course of action. First when Cousins timely asked questions following the January 2019 closing letter, DOC chose to provide a partial, ambiguous answer that was not sufficient to put Cousins on notice that DOC did not intend to further address her request. As a result, the January 2019 closing letter failed to provide Cousins with a final, definitive response to her PRA request.

When Cousins persisted in her efforts to communicate with DOC, DOC ultimately chose to reopen her original PRA request, conduct an additional search, and produce additional responsive records before closing the request again in June 2021. This second and final closing letter was DOC's final, definitive response, triggering the PRA's one-year limitations period in accordance with Belenski. Records produced after the June 2021 closing letter may be relevant to DOC's liability or penalties, but they did not restart the limitations period.

Thus, Cousins' PRA action is not barred by the statute of limitations. We decline to reach her alternative argument regarding the discovery rule of accrual, and we reject DOC's alternative argument that Cousins' action must be dismissed as premature. We reverse and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Because the issues in this case are heavily fact dependent, it is necessary to provide a detailed timeline. This case is before us on DOC's motion for summary judgment, and the facts are undisputed except where noted otherwise. We "construe the facts in the light most favorable to [Cousins,] the nonmoving party." Sanders v State, 169 Wn.2d 827, 845, 240 P.3d 120 (2010). A. Renee Field's death in DOC custody

This case begins with the death of Cousins' sister, Renee Field, in DOC custody. In January 2016, Field experienced "sudden-onset neck and head pain" and later developed "visual changes and right side numbness." CP at 472, 481. However, she was never given "a comprehensive evaluation by a physician or advanced practitioner." Id. at 475.

On March 6, 2016, Field experienced a severe headache with "shooting pain on the right side of the head and neck." Id. at 473. She was given medication and sent "back to her living unit in a wheelchair because she was unable to walk." Id. at 481. Overnight, Field fell out of bed and had a seizure. Instead of calling an ambulance, a DOC physician assistant transferred Field to a different corrections facility. Field arrived there in a state of medical emergency, and staff called 911. Field was taken by ambulance to an outside hospital where doctors attempted surgery, but she "died on March 14, 2016 . . . from a ruptured aneurysm, a stroke, hydrocephalus, and respiratory failure." Id. at 482.

Following an investigation, the Office of Corrections Ombuds concluded that the medical care Field received from DOC "did not meet community healthcare standards, and her death could have been prevented." Id. at 475. The Washington Medical Commission also imposed sanctions against the DOC physician assistant for "contribut[ing] to [Field's] death." Id. at 487. B. Cousins' PRA request to DOC

1. Request, initial response, and production of first two installments

Cousins is the personal representative of Field's estate. On July 21, 2016, Cousins submitted a PRA request to DOC through counsel, seeking "[a]ny and all records regarding Renee A. Field . . . from January 1, 2014 to present." Id. at 36. The request was assigned to Public Records Specialist Gaylene Schave.

On July 25, 2016, Schave e-mailed Cousins a tracking number for her PRA request, PDU-43037,^[1] and explained that Field's medical and chemical dependency records would be processed separately in their respective departments rather than DOC's centralized public records unit. Schave told Cousins to expect additional correspondence by October 11, 2016. Meanwhile, the medical and chemical dependency departments reviewed their records, producing the medical records in August 2016 and the chemical dependency records in February 2017.

In late September 2016, Cousins' PRA request was reassigned to Public Records Specialist Sheri Izatt. On October 28, Izatt sent a cost bill for the first installment (Installment 1). Cousins' counsel asked to cancel the PRA request, which Izatt confirmed. However, the following week, counsel e-mailed to "reopen" the request and asked Izatt to communicate directly with Cousins. Id. at 40. Izatt responded that the records would be released when the costs were paid. On November 15, Cousins e-mailed Izatt to confirm that she was sending payment, and asked to verify that her PRA request included "video or audio recordings" from the corrections facilities. Id. at 1274. Izatt did not respond.

Cousins sent payment, and DOC sent Installment 1 to her on November 22, 2016. Izatt promised further correspondence by February 28, 2017, but later extended the deadline. New counsel appeared on Cousins' behalf in early February, and Izatt later sent counsel a cost bill for the next installment. Cousins paid the bill, and Installment 2 was produced on April 17, 2017. At this point, her PRA request had been pending for approximately nine months.

2. Cousins notifies DOC that specific records are allegedly missing Upon reviewing Installments 1 and 2, Cousins came to believe that some records were missing, such as e-mail attachments. On May 24, 2017, Cousins emailed Izatt through counsel with a list of documents that "appear to have been omitted from the first and second installment of records," including specific reports, letters, and attachments that were referenced in other records but had not been produced.^[2] Id. at 491. The May 2017 e-mail explicitly stated, "To the extent any of the requested records is not covered by our current public records request, Tracking No. PDU-43037, please consider this letter our formal public records request seeking those records." Id. at 492 (emphasis added).

There is no indication that DOC opened a new PRA request for the allegedly missing records. Instead, Izatt responded that Cousins' original PRA "request [was] still open" and that DOC was "still in the process of gathering records." Id. at 499. Izatt further explained that "e[-]mails were maintained via hardcopy and did not maintain the attachments," but she promised that responsive records "will be in future installments." Id. at 500.

3. Additional installments and January 2019 closing letter

Over the next 14 months, DOC produced Installments 3 through 6. In October 2017, between Installments 3 and 4, Cousins asked Izatt to...