Chapter §20.2 FOIA and the PRA

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§20.2 FOIA AND THE PRA

Washington courts have addressed the similarities and differences between FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the PRA, Ch. 42.56 RCW. The basic principle applied by Washington courts is that FOIA cases interpreting provisions similar to the PRA will be considered, but federal cases interpreting differing provisions will not.

(1) In general, Washington courts will consider FOIA cases

Several Washington cases note that FOIA" closely parallels" the PRA and therefore FOIA cases are "particularly helpful" when interpreting the PRA. See Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe, 90 Wn.2d 123, 128, 580 P.2d 246 (1978); see also Servais v. Port of Bellingham, 127 Wn.2d 820, 835, 904 P.2d 1124 (1995); Smith v. Okanogan County, 100 Wn.App. 7, 13, 994 P.2d 857 (2000); Overtake Fund v. City of Bellevue (Overtake Fund I), 60 Wn.App. 787, 793 n.4, 810 P.2d 507, review denied, 117 Wn.2d 1022 (1991) (FOIA "closely parallels" PRA, and Washington courts "often rely on judicial interpretations of FOIA in construing the [PRA].").

Other Washington cases simply provide that FOIA cases are "relevant" in interpreting the PRA, Dawson v. Daly, 120 Wn.2d 782, 791, 845 P.2d 995 (1993); or that Washington courts "may look" to FOIA cases, King County v. Sheehan, 114 Wn.App. 325, 344, 57 P.3d 307 (2002), in appropriate circumstances. See also Limstrom v. Ladenburg (Limstrom II), 136 Wn.2d 595, 608, 963 P.2d 869 (1998) (Washington courts "often look" to FOIA to interpret similar provisions of PRA); Newman v. King County, 133 Wn.2d 565, 573, 947 P.2d 712 (1997) (FOIA and PRA "have been analogized"); Prog. Animal Welfare Soc'y v. Univ. of Wash. (PAWS I), 114 Wn.2d 677, 687, 790 P.2d 604 (1990) (FOIA cases "helpful" when interpreting PRA); Tacoma Pub. Library v. Woessner, 90 Wn.App. 205, 220, 951 P.2d 357 (1998), amended, 972 P.2d 932 (1999) (FOIA cases are used in appropriate circumstances to interpret PRA).

Accordingly, Washington courts have looked to or adopted FOIA standards on certain PRA issues, including

(1)	the requirement that the request seek "identifiable records," see, e.g., Bonamy v. City of Seattle, 92 Wn.App. 403, 410, 960 P.2d 447 (1998), review denied, 137 Wn.2d 1012 (1999);
(2)	the deliberative process exemption, Hearst Corp., 90 Wn.2d at 133;
(3)	the exemption for attorney-client privileged matter Limstrom II, 136 Wn.2d at 608;
(4)	the criteria for in camera review, Overtake Fund I, 60 Wn.App. at 793;
(

...