Mike Belenski v. Jefferson County ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                                                                             FILED
    COURT OF APPEALS
    DIVISION Id
    2015 MAY 19 AM 9: 05
    ST .`   E OF WASHINGTON
    BY
    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
    DIVISION II
    MIKE BELENSKI,                                                               No, 45756 -3 -II
    Appellant,
    v.
    JEFFERSON COUNTY, a Washington State                                     PUBLISHED OPINION
    political subdivision,
    Respondent.
    JOHANSON, C. J. —        In this Public Records Act ( PRA)1 case, Mike Belenski appeals a
    superior court order      granting summary judgment in favor          of   Jefferson   County (County).     Belenski
    argues that the County was required to produce records in response to his requests for ( 1) the
    County' s Internet   access    logs ( IAL), (2)   the electronic records he was seeking for which the County
    does not generate a backup, and ( 3) records and contact information relating to a former county
    employee.
    We hold that ( 1) the County' s IALs are subject to disclosure under the PRA because they
    contain information relating to the conduct of government and therefore are public records, but
    the PRA      statute of   limitations bars Belenski'    s claims   relating to   one of   the IAL   requests, (   2) the
    1
    Ch. 42. 56 RCW.
    No. 45756 -3 - II
    County is not required to respond to Belenski' s request for electronic records for which the County
    does   not generate a         backup    because that   request    did   not   involve identifiable   public records, (   3) the
    County properly withheld records regarding its former employee under statutory exemptions,
    properly provided a brief explanation to support its claimed exemptions, and did not silently
    withhold records.             Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for proceedings
    consistent with this opinion.
    FACTS
    I. BACKGROUND
    The County provides an extensive network of computers, servers, and other technology for
    use   by    its   employees.      At any given time, there are over 300 county -owned personal computers
    PCs) in      service.       The County' s Information Service Department ( IS) secures and maintains this
    infrastructure using firewall             software    known      as "   SonicWall" that, in conjunction with another
    program           called "   Viewpoint,"       automatically generates information regarding contacts between
    county PCs and the Internet. The record of these contacts is known as an " Internet Access Log"
    2
    IAL)       or "   System     Log." The default setting on the software saves this information for 13 months,
    with each new day deleting and replacing the oldest day. The purpose of providing Internet access
    to county         employees     is to   give   them " tools to   perform      their job tasks,"   and network and Internet
    access is provided as a research and communication apparatus to assist in conducting county
    business. Clerk' s Papers ( CP) at 30.
    2
    The     County      contends    that IAL      is different from      an "   Internet Access Audit      Log,"   which the
    County is required to maintain by Jefferson County Resolution 17 -198. According to the County,
    an Internet Access Audit Log would only be generated upon the request of a department head.
    2
    No. 45756 -3 - II
    Belenski made four separate PRA requests for records associated with Internet use by
    county employees. 3 First, on September 27, 2010, Belenski requested the County' s IAL from
    February    1, 2010 to September 27, 2010 ( request           # 1).    The County responded on October 4 that it
    had no responsive records.
    Second, on November 2, 2011, Belenski requested to inspect IALs from January 1, 2011
    to November 1, 2011 (      request # 2).     As a result of Belenski' s request, IS manager David Shambley
    discovered that there had been a catastrophic hard drive failure that affected the Viewpoint
    software.      Shambley   then informed Belenski that "[              g] ood solid archive data" for the IALs was
    available from only November 10, 2011 forward but that the County had managed to salvage data
    on some sporadic      dates   which    it   would collect and provide.        CP    at    379.   The County offered to
    permit    Belenski to inspect the      available      IAL data " in their entirety," but Belenski amended his
    request   to   seek electronic copies       instead   of   inspection. CP     at   226.    The County later provided
    Belenski    a compact     disc ( CD) containing this information.             The County considered the request
    fulfilled at this point, but Belenski considered the IAL data contained on the CD insufficient.
    Third, on December 8, 2011, Belenski submitted a PRA request for " electronic copies of
    every   electronic record     for   which   Jefferson   County [ IS] does    not generate a      back up" ( request #3).
    CP at 40. The County responded, refusing to produce records because Belenski' s request was not
    a request for " identifiable" public records pursuant to RCW 42. 56. 080.
    3
    Belenski   made an additional request       for "[ t]he certificate( s) of records destruction for the [ IALs]
    for February 1, 2010 to September 27, 2010."                 CP at 216. Because Belenski makes no argument
    related to this additional request, this request is irrelevant for purposes of this appeal.
    3
    No. 45756 -3 -II
    Fourth, in August 2012, Belenski requested all records and contact information for a former
    IS   employee ( request # 4).      The County responded, producing some partially redacted documents
    and providing Belenski with an exemption log for the records that it refused to produce based on
    the PRA'     s      various   privacy    exemptions.          Belenski argues that the County' s response was
    inadequate because it did not contain brief explanations.
    Belenski filed         suit    on   November         19,    2012,   alleging     several   causes of action and
    complaining of various deficiencies associated with the County' s responses to his requests.
    Shortly thereafter, the County provided the " brief explanations" that Belenski claims were missing
    from request #4.
    II. PROCEDURE
    The County moved for summary judgment, arguing in part that (1) the statute of limitations
    bars Belenski'       s claim with respect      to   request # 1, (   2) the IALs were not "public records" as defined
    by the PRA, and ( 3) in any event, the County had nevertheless satisfied Belenski' s request #2 by
    producing the CD. The County argued further that Belenski had not requested identifiable records
    in request # 3 and that the County had included proper exemption logs with regard to request #4.
    The superior court ruled that the County was entitled to summary judgment on Belenski' s
    requests #   1, #    2, and # 3. 4 After an in camera review, the superior court ruled that the County had
    properly   withheld and redacted             documents relating to           request #   4.   But the court found that the
    County had failed to provide brief explanations which entitled Belenski to recover his costs. The
    4 The superior court ruled that the IALs did not constitute public records within the purview of the
    PRA because they were not related to government conduct or a proprietary function and, thus, did
    not   satisfy the     second   prong    of   the PRA' s definition of "public           record."    The superior court also
    agreed that Belenski' s request # 3 was not a request for " identifiable" public records.
    4
    No. 45756 -3 -II
    superior   court   dismissed Belenski'     s claims   for   requests #   1, #    2,   and #   3 and awarded Belenski
    434. 99   as costs   incurred resulting from     request # 4.   Belenski filed a motion for reconsideration,
    but the superior court declined to reconsider its earlier rulings. Belenski appeals these orders and
    the superior court' s May 2013 memorandum.
    ANALYSIS
    I. STANDARD OF REVIEW
    We review challenges to an agency action under the PRA de novo where, as here, the
    record   consists     of   documentary    evidence,   affidavits,   and         memoranda.        RCW 42. 56. 550( 3);
    Resident Action Council         v.   Seattle Hous. Auth., 
    177 Wash. 2d 417
    , 428, 
    327 P.3d 600
    ( 2013).
    Similarly, we review summary judgment orders de novo, viewing the facts in the light most
    favorable to the nonmoving party.          Vallandigham v. Clover Park Sch. Dist. No. 400, 
    154 Wash. 2d 16
    , 26, 
    109 P.3d 805
    ( 2005).        Trial courts properly grant summary judgment where the pleadings
    and affidavits show no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment
    as a matter of     law. CR 56( c).    When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we consider solely
    the issues and evidence the parties called to the trial court' s attention on the motion for summary
    judgment. RAP 9. 12.
    II. PUBLIC RECORDS - REQUESTS # 1 AND # 2
    Belenski argues that the IALs are public records pursuant to the PRA because the IALs are
    writings that contain information relating to the conduct of government that are retained by the
    County. The County responds that the IALs are not public records under the PRA because a nexus
    does   not exist   between the IALs      and a.   government     function. We agree with Belenski and hold
    that under the plain language of the PRA, the requested IALs are writings prepared and retained
    5
    No. 45756 -3 -II
    by the County that contain information relating to the conduct of government.5 We hold, however,
    that the   County    was not required         to   produce records           in   response    to   request #     1 because the PRA
    statute of limitations bars Belenski' s claim regarding that request.
    A. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
    The PRA is       a "`   strongly   worded mandate '              aimed at giving interested members of the
    public wide access          to   public   documents to         ensure governmental             transparency.            Worthington v.
    Westnet, 
    180 Wash. 2d 500
    , 506, 
    341 P.3d 995
    ( 2015) (                          quoting Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe, 
    90 Wash. 2d 123
    ,    127, 
    580 P.2d 246
    ( 1978)).               The    statute' s      language " reflects the belief that the sound
    governance of a free society demands that the public have full access to information concerning
    the    workings of    the   government."           Amren v. City of Kalama, 
    131 Wash. 2d 25
    , 31, 
    929 P.2d 389
    1997).    Accordingly, courts must avoid interpreting the PRA in a way that would tend to frustrate
    that   purpose.     
    Worthington, 180 Wash. 2d at 507
    .       The PRA "     shall      be   liberally     construed ...   to
    promote     this   public   policy    and   to   assure   that the        public   interest   will      be   fully   protected."   RCW
    42. 56. 030.
    Whether a document is a " public record" is a critical determination for the PRA' s purposes
    because the Act         applies     only to      public records.          Dragonslayer, Inc. v. Wash. State Gambling
    Comm 'n, 139 Wn.         App.      433, 444, 
    161 P.3d 428
    ( 2007).                A public record is defined very broadly,
    5 Belenski also argues that the burden is on the County to show that the IALs are not public records,
    implying     that the   County      has failed to do       so.   Although Belenski is correct that the burden is on
    the agency seeking to prevent disclosure of public records, that burden is only placed on the agency
    once the threshold inquiry of whether the records are " public records" is met. Dragonslayer, Inc.
    v. Wash. State Gambling Comm 'n, 
    139 Wash. App. 433
    , 441, 
    161 P.3d 428
    ( 2007).
    6
    No. 45756 -3 -II.
    encompassing virtually any                record related     to the   conduct of government.       O' Neill v. City of
    Shoreline, 
    170 Wash. 2d 138
    , 147, 
    240 P.3d 1149
    ( 2010).
    RCW 42. 56. 010( 3) sets forth the definition of "public record" for purposes of the PRA and
    provides in relevant part,
    Public record" includes 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.
    Accordingly,     to   constitute     a public record under            the PRA,   a record must   be ( 1)    a writing ( 2)
    containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of a
    governmental or proprietary function and (3) prepared, owned, used, or retained by a state or local
    agency. Nissen        v.   Pierce   County,     183 Wn.    App.   581, 590, 
    333 P.3d 577
    ( 2014),      review granted,
    
    343 P.3d 759
    ( 2015).
    B. THE IALs " CONTAIN INFORMATION RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF GOVERNMENT"
    There is no genuine dispute that the IALs constitute writings that are retained by the
    County.     At issue here is         whether      the IALs "    contain[ ]   information relating to the conduct of
    government or       the    performance of government."                RCW 42. 56. 010( 3).   We broadly interpret the
    second element of          the   public record     test to   allow    disclosure.   Confederated Tribes, of Chehalis
    Reservation v. Johnson, 
    135 Wash. 2d 734
    , 746, 
    958 P.2d 260
    ( 1998).
    The purpose of providing Internet access to county employees is to give them " tools to
    perform     their job tasks"        and   to   research and communicate          for county business.      CP   at   30.   The
    requested IALs were generated when a government employee, using a government computer,
    accessed the Internet. The IALs contain a record of every contact a county employee makes to the
    Internet.    An IAL record displays, among other things, Internet protocol ( IP) addresses and the
    7
    No. 45756 -3 -II
    time the contact is made. According to Shambley, the IALs contain " data about data, the so- called
    6
    meta -data.   "    CP   at   364.   Apparently, this information can be used to identify which websites
    employees are contacting, notwithstanding the fact that doing so would involve a " cumbersome"
    process.   CP at 364.
    County employees use the Internet to obtain information to perform their work. Therefore,
    there is no question that the IALs record work -related Internet use on a county -owned computer.
    Accordingly, we hold that the requested IALs fall squarely within the definition of public records. 8
    C. PRIOR CASE LAW IS DISTINGUISHABLE
    Although our courts have previously construed the second prong of the PRA definition,
    this is a case of first impression because of the unique nature of the requested data. The County
    relies on our opinion in 
    Dragonslayer, 139 Wash. App. at 439
    , and our Supreme Court' s decision in
    Concerned Ratepayers Ass 'n v. Public Utilities District No. 1 of Clark County, 
    138 Wash. 2d 950
    ,
    
    983 P.2d 635
    ( 1999), in support of the proposition that the IALs are not public records because the
    County did        not use    the IALs for any   purpose   before Belenski'   s requests.   Therefore, the County
    6 Our Supreme Court has held that the metadata stored as part of an electronic record is a public
    record subject to disclosure. O' 
    Neill, 170 Wash. 2d at 147
    .
    7 The County also contends that the IALs do not satisfy prong three of the definition because the
    County did not prepare, own, retain, or use them. This argument lacks merit because the County
    owned the computers and software that created the IALs; Jefferson County Resolution 17 -98
    required the IS to maintain the IALs and the County retained the IALs at least temporarily.
    8 Because the trial court concluded that the IALs were not public records, it did not consider
    whether any part of the requested information might be " purely personal in nature" nor did it
    consider whether any exemptions might apply. Because the County has not claimed that any part
    of the requested information is purely personal, we do not address that issue nor do we address
    whether any exemptions might apply.
    8
    No. 45756 -3 -II
    argues there is no nexus between the IALs and any government use or decision -making as the
    aforementioned cases require. But those cases are distinguishable because the records at issue in
    those cases were created by third parties. Here, it is undisputed that the requested information was
    generated from within the government agency and that no third parties are involved.
    In Dragonslayer, the issue was whether audited financial statements prepared by an
    independent public accountant firm and subsequently submitted to the Gambling Commission
    were public records under              the 
    PRA. 139 Wash. App. at 440
    . There was no dispute that prongs one
    and three of the public record definition were satisfied because the financial statements were
    writings" that were retained by the commission pursuant to the Washington Administrative Code.
    
    Dragonslayer, 139 Wash. App. at 444
    . The Dragonslayer court was asked to determine whether the
    financial statements prepared by a third party related to the conduct of 
    government. 139 Wash. App. at 447
    .    Finding the record inadequate to make that determination, we remanded the matter and
    directed the trial court to make additional findings as to how the commission used the firm' s
    financial statements in order to determine whether they were related to a public function.
    
    Dragonslayer, 139 Wash. App. at 446
    .
    In   part,   the Dragonslayer        court relied   on   language from Concerned Ratepayers.              There,
    our Supreme Court held that technical documents related to the construction of a power plant that
    were prepared            by   a   third party   were nevertheless public records.           Concerned 
    Ratepayers, 138 Wash. 2d at 962
    .    The Concerned Ratepayers court reasoned that because a nexus existed between
    the information and the public utility district' s decision-making process, the technical documents
    were,   therefore, " used"          by the 
    agency. 138 Wash. 2d at 960
    -61. The   court stated, "[   T] he information
    9
    No. 45756 -3 - II
    relates not only to the conduct or performance of the agency or its proprietary function, but is also
    a relevant   factor in the agency'   s action."   Concerned Ratepayers, 13,8 Wn.2d at 960 -61.
    The County relies on Dragonslayer and Concerned Ratepayers to argue that a " nexus" is
    required    between the IALs       and    government    function.    But in Dragonslayer and Concerned
    Ratepayers, it was unclear whether the requested records related to a government function because
    the information     was generated    by   a   third party and not   by   the agency. 9   Therefore, those courts
    required that the third-party-generated information must be actually " used" by the government
    agency to be considered a public record. Concerned 
    Ratepayers, 138 Wash. 2d at 961
    ; 
    Dragonslayer, 139 Wash. App. at 446
    .
    But here, where government employees use government computers and software to access
    the Internet for their assigned work, there is no need to require the resulting IALs to be " used" by
    the agency in order to be a record " containing information relating to the conduct of government."
    RCW 42. 56. 010( 3).    Under these facts and under a plain reading of the PRA, it is sufficient that
    the   requested   information "   contain[ s]   information relating to ...      governmental ...     function."
    RCW 42. 56. 010( 3).
    The County also relies on Tiberino v. Spokane County, 
    103 Wash. App. 680
    , 
    13 P.3d 1104
    2000),    to support its argument that there needs to be a " nexus" or " use" requirement. Although
    the requested information in Tiberino did not involve third -party- generated information, that case
    is nevertheless distinguishable. There, Division Three of this court held that personal e -mails sent
    9 We also note that while the Dragonslayer court' s analysis revolved around prong two of the
    public record" definition, Concerned Ratepayers involved an examination of prong three of that
    
    definition. 138 Wash. 2d at 958
    .
    10
    No. 45756 -3 -II
    from Tiberino' s county -owned computer were public records within the scope of the PRA because
    the county printed the e -mails in preparation for litigation resulting from Tiberino' s termination, a
    proprietary function.          Tiberino, 103 Wn.        App.    at   688.    Thus, the County argues that county -
    generated      e -mail   was   not   considered    a public    record       until   it    was " used"     in connection with
    government       business.     But in Tiberino, it was undisputed that the e -mails was purely personal in
    nature even though they were generated by a government employee on a government computer.
    Here, in contrast, the County does not claim that any of the requested IALs are purely " personal"
    in   nature.   We therefore find Tiberino unhelpful on, the issue of whether the requested IALs are
    public records.
    To further support its argument that the IALs do not relate to government conduct, the
    County argues that the IALs were collected only as an unwanted function of the County' s software
    program.       The County argues further that IAL data might be a public record within the terms of
    the PRA if it were used to create an audit log of employee Internet use that was then used in
    connection with some proprietary function. The record establishes that the County never reviewed
    the IALs or used them for any governmental function. IS manager Shambley declared that he had
    never been asked to produce the IAL data by any county supervisor, manager, elected official, or
    director. The      County " virtually ignored"         the IALs,     at   least   until   Belenski'   s   PRA   requests.   CP at
    292.
    But the    County' s       arguments    do   not   address      whether    the IALs     nonetheless " contain[ ]
    information      related   to the    conduct of government."          RCW 42. 56. 010( 3).            And we hold that there
    is no requirement under the PRA that the IALs be " used" by the government when the IALs are
    created by government employees using government computers and software in the course of their
    11
    No. 45756 -3 -II
    assigned work. To the extent the superior court required such a use or nexus, it erred. Under these
    circumstances, the IALs contain information relating to the conduct of government such that they
    satisfy prong two of the " public records" definition.
    D. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ON REQUEST # 1
    The County also argues that any claim Belenski can assert with regard to his request for
    the   County' s     IALs from     February      1, 2010 to September 27, 2010 ( request         #   1),    is barred by either
    the PRA'       s   one -year   statute   of   limitations, RCW 42. 56. 550( 6),      or   by   the two -year      " catch -all"
    statute of     limitations     contained      in RCW 4. 16. 130.      We hold that Belenski' s claim with regard to
    request #      1 is barred by the two -year statute of limitations.
    A   request   for   records under      the PRA is    subject   to two   separate    limitation      periods.   One
    provision in the Act itself provides that a plaintiff must file an action within one year of either ( 1)
    an agency' s claim of exemption from the PRA' s disclosure requirements, or (2) an agency' s " last
    production of a record on a partial or             installment basis.      RCW 42. 56. 550( 6);           Johnson v. Dep 't of
    Corr., 164 Wn.          App.    769, 775, 
    265 P.3d 216
    ( 2011), review denied, 
    173 Wash. 2d 1032
    ( 2012).
    Alternatively, the two -year " catch -all" statute controls when there are no other applicable statutes
    of limitation. 
    Johnson, 164 Wash. App. at 777
    .
    Here, the     County     contends      that its   answer   to Belenski'   s request #      1 of " no responsive
    records" triggered the running of the PRA' s one -year statute of limitations. CP at 214. Although
    it is not immediately clear whether such a response would trigger the PRA' s one -year statute, we
    need not answer this question because Belenski' s suit was untimely under the latter two -year
    statute.
    12
    No. 45756 -3 -II
    Belenski   made request #     1 on September 27, 2010. The County mailed a letter stating that
    it had " no   responsive records" on    October 4,   and e- mailed    him the      same answer on   October 5.   CP
    at 214. Belenski does not dispute having received the responses on those dates. Belenski did not
    file his complaint until November 19, 2012, over two years after the County responded to request
    1.   Accordingly, we hold that Belenski' s claim regarding the County' s IALs from February 1,
    2010 to September 27, 2010 ( request        #   1) is barred by the statute of limitations contained in RCW
    4. 16. 130.
    E. COUNTY' S PRODUCTION OF CD ON REQUEST # 2
    The County further argues that if the IALs are considered public records, it nevertheless
    satisfied request #2 by providing Belenski with the CD containing the " aggregate" IAL summary.
    Belenski responds that he never agreed to accept a summary report of the Internet activity in lieu
    of his request for the complete IALs.
    But this issue is not ripe for our review, and even if it were, the record is not developed
    enough to determine whether the CD was sufficient to satisfy Belenski' s request. The superior
    court made no ruling regarding the CD as it pertained to request #2. And from the record before
    us, we cannot discern what the CD actually contained. The record includes neither the CD itself
    nor any copy of the files thereon. To address this contention, additional fact finding is required
    on remand.
    III. IDENTIFIABLE RECORDS - REQUEST # 3
    Belenski    next   contends   that PRA     request #   3 for " electronic copies of every electronic
    record   for    which   Jefferson   County [ IS] does         not   generate   a   back up"   was a request for
    identifiable" records. CP at 40. We conclude that Belenski' s request was not one for identifiable
    13
    No. 45756 -3 -II
    public records because the County never kept records in such a way that would allow them to
    identify   records     that   were not "   backed up" and because the PRA does not require an agency to
    conduct research or to explain public records.
    A   request under        the PRA   must   be for      an "   identifiable   public record."    See Hangartner v.
    City ofSeattle;     
    151 Wash. 2d 439
    , 447 -48, 
    90 P.3d 26
    ( 2004) ( emphasis                 added) (   quoting former RCW
    42. 17. 270 ( 1987)).        A   mere request   for information does         not so    qualify. Wood v. Lowe, 102 Wn.
    App.   872, 879, 
    10 P.3d 494
    ( 2000);          Bonamy v. City ofSeattle, 
    92 Wash. App. 403
    , 410 -12, 
    960 P.2d 447
    ( 1998).     Moreover,         although   there is   no official       format for    a valid   PRA   request, "   a party
    seeking documents            must, at a minimum, [(      1)]   provide notice that the request is made pursuant to
    the [ PRA]    and [(   2)]    identify the documents with reasonable clarity to allow the agency to locate
    them."     
    Hangartner, 151 Wash. 2d at 447
    . The PRA does not require agencies to research or explain
    public records, but only to make those records accessible to the public. 
    Bonamy, 92 Wash. App. at 409
    . And a court cannot order production of records that do not exist. Neighborhood Alliance of
    Spokane      County v. County        ofSpokane, 
    172 Wash. 2d 702
    , 753, 
    261 P.3d 119
    ( 2011).                 When a request
    is invalid, the agency is excused from complying with it. 
    Bonamy, 92 Wash. App. at 412
    .
    Belenski' s claim that he requested " identifiable records" is unpersuasive. First, the County
    does not bifurcate records in a manner that would allow it to provide Belenski with a copy of every
    record   that the   County does not " back up." Shambley described IS' s recommendation that county
    employees take it upon themselves to employ precautionary measures to save electronic records
    to   external servers or         drives maintained   by    the   County. Whether or not county employees heed
    this advice is not something that IS tracks. Consequently, if the County were required to research
    an untold number of records to respond to Belenski' s request, it would be obligated to create and
    14
    No. 45756 -3 - II
    produce records that do not currently exist. 
    Bonamy, 92 Wash. App. at 409
    ; Neighborhood 
    Alliance, 172 Wash. 2d at 753
    . This is a result that the PRA neither intends nor requires.
    Second, Belenski'   s request        is essentially    a request   for information.      In Bonamy, Division
    One of this court held that Bonamy failed to make a request for identifiable records in part because
    he stated that he wanted to " know" what policy guidelines govern investigations into employee
    conduct and how they differ from other related policies rather than simply requesting copies of the
    policies 
    themselves. 92 Wash. App. at 409
    . Similarly, in Smith v. Okanogan County, 
    100 Wash. App. 7
    , 19, 
    994 P.2d 857
    ( 2000),       Smith asked the Okanogan County Commissioners' Office to advise
    him when, how, and why the county became a municipal corporation. The court held that Smith' s
    request   failed to   identify    a public         record.     Smith, 100 Wn.    App.   at   19.    Instead, Smith was
    essentially requesting information. 
    Smith, 100 Wash. App. at 19
    .
    Here, responding to the County' s assertion that he had failed to request identifiable records,
    Belenski said that he wanted the records in part because he wanted to identify "what public records
    are at risk   of permanent       loss."       CP   at   237.   By virtue of his request, Belenski was essentially
    seeking information associated with the County' s approach or policy regarding storage and
    maintenance of electronic records. Belenski sought to determine whether there are records ( and if
    so, which records) that the County does not trouble itself to secure. For the foregoing reasons, we
    hold that Belenski'     s request #       3   was not a request       for " identifiable" public records within the
    meaning of the PRA.
    IV. EMPLOYMENT RECORD EXEMPTIONS - REQUEST # 4
    Belenski further argues that the County improperly withheld records related to a former
    county employee because the claimed exemptions for employees and applicants no longer apply
    15
    No. 45756 -3 - II
    to a former employee. Belenski claims that at least some of the records that were withheld entirely
    should   have been      produced with partial redactions.     We hold that Belenski' s claims fail because
    he cites no authority to suggest that exemptions for employee privacy do not apply to former
    employees. 1°
    A. APPLICATION OF EXEMPTION TO FORMER EMPLOYEES
    The PRA requires a government agency to disclose any public record upon request;
    however, an agency lawfully withholds production of records if one of the PRA' s enumerated
    exemptions applies.        RCW 42. 56. 070( 1);     Sanders v. State, 
    169 Wash. 2d 827
    , 836, 
    240 P.3d 120
    2010). "   The PRA' s exemptions are provided solely to protect relevant privacy rights or vital
    governmental interests that sometimes outweigh the PRA' s broad policy in favor of disclosing
    public records."       Resident Action 
    Council, 177 Wash. 2d at 432
    .    The burden is on the agency to
    establish   that    an exemption applies.     RCW 42. 56. 550( 1);    Resident Action 
    Council, 177 Wash. 2d at 428
    .
    Here, the      County   invoked the     exemptions contained            in former RCW 42. 56. 250( 2)-( 3)
    2010) either to withhold entirely or redact partially records associated with the former employee' s
    personnel    file    and employment       application materials.     Former RCW 42. 56. 250 exempts some
    public employee records from public inspection and copying under the PRA and provides that the
    following records are exempt,
    10 Belenski also asserts that the superior court erred by failing to make written findings that the
    exemptions were proper specifically because the protected relevant privacy rights or vital
    government interests applied to the former employee' s personnel information. But Belenski did
    not raise this issue before the superior court, and he cites no authority to support the notion that a
    court must enter        such   findings   when   it determines that       an   exemption   applies.   Therefore, we
    decline to further address this assertion.
    16
    No. 45756 -3 -II
    2)   All   applications    for   public    employment,   including the names of
    applicants, resumes, and other related materials submitted with respect to an
    applicant;
    3)   The residential addresses, residential telephone numbers, personal
    wireless telephone numbers, personal electronic mail addresses, social security
    numbers, and emergency contact information of employees or volunteers of a
    public agency, and the names, dates of birth, residential addresses, social security
    numbers, and emergency contact information of dependents of employees or
    volunteers of a public agency that are held by any public agency in personnel
    records, public employment related records, or volunteer rosters, or are included in
    any mailing list of employees or volunteers of any public agency.
    The    record reveals     that the    County   withheld    four documents in their entirety.   Three of
    these documents were related to the former employee' s county employment application and one
    was related to his family' s medical information. The employment application documents include
    background checks, resumes, the application itself, and driving records. These documents clearly
    constitute the type of employment application material categorically exempt under former RCW
    42. 56. 250( 2).     The County also produced three documents with partial redactions to exclude
    residential addresses, personal e -mail and telephone numbers, as well as medical information.
    Each   of   these   are also    properly   exempt under    the PRA.      See former RCW 42. 56. 250( 3); RCW
    42. 56. 360( 2).
    The crux of Belenski' s argument appears to be that the County was not entitled to refuse
    to produce these records by availing itself of the aforementioned exemptions because the former
    employee is neither an applicant nor is he an employee. But there is no language in either of those
    exemptions that limits their application only to current employees or only to those whose
    applications for employment happen to be contemporaneous with a PRA request. Such a reading
    would
    defy      reason   and   jeopardize privacy.      See Seattle Firefighters Union Local No. 27 v.
    Hollister, 48 Wn.         App.    129, 134, 
    737 P.2d 1302
    ( 1987) ( construing public employee privacy
    17
    No. 45756 -3 - II
    exemption contained       in former RCW 42. 17. 310( 1)( b) (           1987) to apply to retired firefighters and
    police   officers).    We hold that the exemptions apply to the former employee' s records and,
    therefore, the County properly withheld or redacted them.
    Belenski     next also   argues   that   a one -page "   screenshot" that the County withheld under
    former RCW 42. 56. 250( 2) and ( 3) should have been produced with partial redactions because it
    contains the former employee' s employee number aside from his exempt home address. But our
    courts have held that an employee' s name coupled with his or her identification number, can be
    properly exempt under the PRA for privacy because such material could potentially provide access
    to other exempt personal information. Tacoma Pub. Library v. Woessner, 
    90 Wash. App. 205
    , 221-
    11
    22, 
    951 P.2d 357
    , 
    972 P.2d 932
    ( 1998).                   We hold that the County properly withheld the
    screenshot record.
    B. BRIEF EXPLANATIONS
    Belenski argues that the County' s exemption logs continue to lack the necessary " brief
    explanation" required      by   the PRA. Br.      of   Appellant   at   31.   Belenski also asserts that the County
    silently withheld" records from him. Br. of Appellant at 34. Wechold that the County provided
    a sufficient brief explanation in its revised exemption log.
    An agency withholding or redacting any record must specify the exemption and give a
    brief   explanation of    how the   exemption applies         to the document.       RCW 42. 56. 210( 3); Sanders,
    11. Belenski also claims that he should have been entitled to a partially redacted screenshot because
    the screenshot displayed a time of 11: 48 AM. But the time that appears on the screenshot is not an
    actual part of the employee record being displayed. Rather, it is the time that the screenshot was
    taken on the county       employee' s computer, separate and              distinct from the   redacted record.   The
    record itself shows only the former employee' s name, his home address, and his employee number,
    which, as we have explained, is all exempt under the PRA for privacy.
    18
    No. 45756 -3 
    -II 169 Wash. 2d at 846
    . Merely identifying the document and the claimed exemption does not suffice
    to satisfy the brief explanation requirement. 
    Sanders, 169 Wash. 2d at 846
    .
    Here, the County initially cited only the name of the document and the applicable
    exemption   in the   exemption       log    it   provided       to Belenski in      response   to   request # 4.   Shortly after
    Belenski commenced this litigation, the County provided a revised exemption log that contained
    a new section      dedicated to brief        explanations         for      each claimed exemption.         The superior court
    ruled that because the County satisfied its obligation under the PRA only after Belenski filed suit,
    Belenski   was    entitled   to    recover       his   costs.    Because he prevailed on this issue, the nature of
    Belenski' s argument to this court is unclear.
    To the extent that he contends that the revised exemption logs lack the requisite brief
    explanation,     Belenski'   s    argument        fails.     In addition to identification of each record and the
    applicable exemption,        the   revised       log features     a section entitled "   Brief Explanation." CP at 657-
    58.   There, the County provides a description of either the nature of the document that justifies
    exemption as a whole or an explanation as to the particular information that permits redaction. We
    hold that Belenski' s claim fails.
    C. SILENT WITHHOLDING
    Belenski     claims      that the   County         silently   withheld records    from him. Belenski bases this
    assertion on the fact that he later discovered numerous records responsive to request # 4 that had
    not been provided to him by the County. In Belenski' s view, the fact that his request for the former
    employee' s records " had only been sent to 3 entities" was evidence that the County purposely and
    deceptively    withheld records.        Br.       of   Appellant      at   34.   We hold that the County did not silently
    withhold records.
    19
    No. 45756 -3 -II
    The PRA prohibits " silent withholding" or the failure to reveal that some records have been
    withheld in their entirety, which gives requesters the misleading impression that all documents
    relevant to the request have been disclosed. Progressive Animal Welfare Soc. v. Univ. of Wash.,
    
    125 Wash. 2d 243
    , 270 -71, 
    884 P.2d 592
    ( 1994). "'           The adequacy of a search is judged by a standard
    of reasonableness, that is, the search must be reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant
    documents. '    Forbes    v.   City   of Gold Bar, 171 Wn.      App. 857,    866, 
    288 P.3d 384
    ( 2012) ( quoting
    Neighborhood 
    Alliance, 172 Wash. 2d at 720
    ), review denied, 
    177 Wash. 2d 1002
    ( 2013).
    The   record shows      that the   County forwarded      Belenski'   s request #   4 to three departments:
    auditor /payroll,    central   services,     and Board of County Commissioners /Human Resources
    BoCC/ HR).    Belenski cites no authority to support the proposition that the County violated the
    PRA   by filtering   Belenski'   s request    through only three county departments.           Nor does Belenski
    show that the County' s search for the requested documents was unreasonable. As part of request
    4, Belenski asked for all e -mails to and from the former employee, all records documenting his
    training involving    the PRA,        and all records   containing his   contact   information.   Considering the
    nature of Belenski' s request, it was reasonable to contact the auditor /payroll, central services, and
    BoCC/ HR.
    Moreover, even had the County provided the same records Belenski was able to acquire
    through other means, it would have been entirely within the right of the County to redact the former
    employee' s personal      information      as explained above.      The County did not violate the PRA by
    silently withholding" records.
    20
    No. 45756 -3 -II
    CONCLUSION
    We hold that the        County' s IALs    are " public records"   because they contain information
    relating to the conduct of government. Therefore, we reverse the trial court' s grant of summary
    judgment to the County on request #2. We affirm the trial court' s grant of summary judgment to
    the   County   on requests #   1, #   3, and #4. Accordingly, we reverse in part, affirm in part, and remand
    for action consistent with this opinion.
    We concur:
    MAXA, J.
    LEE, J.
    21