Resident Action Council v. Seattle Hous. Auth. ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •         / Fl LE
    IN CLERKS OFFICE
    llJIREME COURT, STAlE Of WASIIIG1al
    :      01TE....MAY 0 9 201~
    -yl'1....,.~ 'JUSTICE
    CHIEF
    c           ·ct'.
    ~·
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
    RESIDENT ACTION COUNCIL,   )
    )
    Respondent,   )                     No. 87656-8
    )
    v.                     )
    )                     EnBanc
    SEATTLE HOUSING AUTHORITY, )
    )
    Appellant.    )                                MAY 09 2013
    Filed - - - - - - - -
    _______________________ )
    GONZALEZ, J.-This direct appeal concerns the public disclosure of Seattle
    Housing Authority (SHA) grievance hearing decisions pursuant to the Public Records
    Act (PRA), chapter 42.56 RCW. SHA hearing decisions contain welfare recipients'
    personal information. This information is exempt from disclosure under the PRA, but
    the PRA requires redaction and disclosure of public records insofar as all exempt
    material can be removed. Accordingly, the PRA requires redaction of welfare
    recipients' exempt information contained in SHA's grievance hearing decisions.
    Applicable federal regulations do not exempt the hearing decisions from disclosure,
    nor do applicable federal regulations preempt the PRA. Thus, the trial court properly
    ordered SHA to produce the grievance hearing decisions pursuant to the redaction
    requirement of the PRA, properly ordered SHA to produce the responsive records in
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    electronic format and to establish necessary policies and procedures to ensure
    compliance with the PRA, and properly awarded statutory damages. We affirm the
    trial court and award respondent Resident Action Council (RAC) its attorney fees on
    appeal.
    I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    SHA is a local housing authority that provides federally subsidized public
    housing in Seattle. Disputes between individual tenants and SHA are resolved
    through a grievance hearing process resulting in a written decision from a hearing
    officer. Pursuant to applicable federal regulations, an unredacted copy of each
    decision is placed in the tenant's file at SHA and a separate redacted copy is placed in
    a central file. See 
    24 C.F.R. § 966.57
    (a). RAC is a group of SHA tenant leaders
    seeking copies of all SHA grievance hearing decisions dated June 17, 2007, or later.
    On June 17, 2010, RAC made a request under the PRA for copies of all such hearing
    decisions and also requested that such copies be provided in electronic format to
    minimize reproduction costs.
    SHA produced redacted hard copies of the hearing decisions without
    explanation or comment. RAC then complained that SHA had failed to explain its
    redactions, that the hearing decisions were inconsistently redacted and some of the
    decisions had been overly redacted, that SHA had included numerous duplicates and
    nonresponsive documents (and was seeking compensation for production of those
    2
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    documents), and that the documents had been delivered in hard copy with a
    "messenger fee" rather than in electronic format as requested. SHA failed to respond.
    RAC then sought relief in superior court under the PRA, seeking costs, fees,
    and statutory damages, and an injunction requiring SHA to produce copies of the
    hearing decisions (without any unauthorized redactions and in electronic format).
    RAC also sought an injunction ordering SHA to establish (1) published procedures for
    requesting documents, (2) a published list of relevant PRA exemptions, (3) a policy
    for redacting grievance hearing decisions, (4) a policy for providing explanations for
    withholding or redacting documents, and ( 5) a policy of providing records in
    electronic format when requested. SHA argued in part that the unredacted hearing
    decisions are not subject to the disclosure or redaction requirements of the PRA and
    that it already disclosed the redacted decisions in full.
    The trial court granted RAC the relief it requested. The trial court first ordered
    SHA to produce "all grievance hearing decisions subject to RAC's request" with
    "[ o]nly names and identifying information of SHA tenants ... redacted," with a code
    or marks to distinguish among redacted items, and in electronic format. Clerk's
    Papers at 171. In a subsequent order, the trial court also directed SHA to pay statutory
    damages at a rate of $25 per day, to publish procedures for requesting records, to
    publish a list of relevant exemptions, to establish a policy for redacting grievance
    hearing decisions, to establish a policy for providing written explanations whenever
    withholding records under the PRA, and to provide electronic records when requested.
    3
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    SHA appealed and the case was certified and transferred to this court. SHA
    argues ( 1) that the unredacted hearing decisions within individual tenant files are
    exempt from disclosure under the PRA and thus, that the only relevant documents
    subject to disclosure were produced without (additional) redaction; (2) that it has no
    obligation to produce documents in electronic format; (3) that it has no duty to explain
    redactions that are made pursuant to federal regulations; (4) that it has wide discretion
    in determining how to redact documents under said federal regulations; and (5) that it
    has no duty to publish procedures for redactions conducted pursuant to federal
    regulations. RAC disagrees and seeks fees on appeal pursuant to RCW 42.56.550(4).
    See Progressive Animal Welfare Soc 'y v. Univ. of Wash., 
    125 Wn.2d 243
    , 271, 
    884 P.2d 592
     (1994) (PAWS II).
    II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
    Agency action taken or challenged under the PRA is reviewed de novo. RCW
    42.56.550(3); PAWS II, 125 Wn.2d at 252. The burden is on the agency to establish
    that an exemption to production applies under the PRA. RCW 42.56.550(1 ). A trial
    court's decision to grant an injunction and its decision regarding the terms of the
    injunction are reviewed for abuse of discretion. Kucera v. Dep 't of Transp., 
    140 Wn.2d 200
    , 209, 
    995 P.2d 63
     (2000).
    III. ANALYSIS
    Under the broad provisions of the PRA, SHA's unredacted hearing decisions
    must be redacted and produced. SHA operates as a local agency in cooperation with
    4
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Although SHA
    is subject to limited federal regulations, SHA also remains subject to state laws such
    as the PRA. The PRA promotes open government by requiring disclosure of public
    records upon request. The PRA applies to SHA's unredacted grievance decisions, and
    thus the trial court properly ordered SHA to redact and produce those documents. The
    trial court also acted within its discretion when it ordered electronic production and
    when it required SHA to establish necessary policies and procedures to ensure
    compliance with the PRA. The trial court also properly awarded statutory damages.
    A.        Legal Background
    1.      Local Housing Authorities and Cooperative Federalism
    SHA is a local housing authority that operates within an established framework
    of federal and state cooperation. The United States Housing Act of 1937 allows for
    federal assistance to local housing authorities while maintaining and promoting state
    and local control. See 42 U.S.C. § 1437f(b)(1) (authorizing "annual contributions
    contracts" with local housing authorities); 
    42 U.S.C. § 1437
    (a)(1)(C) (establishing
    policy of "vest[ing] in public housing agencies that perform well[] the maximum
    amount of responsibility and flexibility in program administration"). This sort of
    framework, "in which state agencies are given broad responsibility and latitude in
    administering welfare assistance programs," has been described as a form of
    "cooperative federalism." Turner v. Perales, 
    869 F.2d 140
    , 141 (2d Cir. 1989); see
    also King v. Smith, 
    392 U.S. 309
    , 316-17, 
    88 S. Ct. 2128
    , 
    20 L. Ed. 2d 1118
     (1968);
    5
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    Shapiro v. Thompson, 
    394 U.S. 618
    ,645, 
    89 S. Ct. 1322
    ,
    22 L. Ed. 2d 600
     (1969)
    (Warren, C.J., dissenting) ("Federal entry into the welfare area can ... be best
    described as a major experiment in 'cooperative federalism,' combining state and
    federal participation to solve the problems of the depression." (citation omitted)),
    overruled on unrelated grounds in Edelman v. Jordan, 
    415 U.S. 651
    , 671, 
    94 S. Ct. 1347
    ,
    39 L. Ed. 2d 662
     (1974). The Washington State Legislature authorized the
    creation of local housing authorities such as SHA, see RCW 35.82.040, and also has
    authorized such local housing authorities to "do any and all things necessary or
    desirable to secure the financial aid or cooperation of the federal government," RCW
    35.82.200(1). Accordingly, SHA has coordinated with HUD to receive federal
    assistance and is now subject to certain federal regulations. See, e.g., Lankford v.
    Sherman, 451 F .3d 496, 510 (8th Cir. 2006) (noting that in "a system of cooperative
    federalism ... once the state voluntarily accepts the conditions imposed by Congress,
    the Supremacy Clause obliges it to comply with federal requirements").
    SHA's dispute resolution process must comply with relevant federal
    regulations. Specifically, disputes between individual tenants and SHA must be
    resolved through a grievance hearing process established pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
    1437d(k) and 
    24 C.F.R. § 966
    . Under 
    24 C.F.R. § 966.57
    , the secretary ofHUD has
    required public housing authorities (PHAs) such as SHA to ensure that disputes are
    resolved by hearing officers who must provide written decisions. The federal
    regulations also require PHAs to ensure that one copy of each written decision is
    6
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    "retain[ed] ... in the tenant's folder" and another copy "with all names and
    identifying references deleted" is on file and "made available for inspection by a
    prospective complainant, his representative, or the hearing panel or hearing officer."
    24 C.P.R. § 966.57(a). A "complainant" is defined as "any tenant whose grievance is
    presented to the PHA," and a "grievance" is defined as "any dispute which a tenant
    may have ... [under] the individual tenant's lease or PHA regulations .... " 24
    C.P.R. § 966.53(a), (b). Pursuant to these regulations, SHA retains unredacted copies
    of hearing decisions in individual tenant files and also retains a central file of redacted
    hearing decisions. The dispute in this case arises out ofRAC's request for disclosure
    of these documents.
    SHA remains subject to state law. State law establishes local housing
    authorities in the first place, defines their powers and obligations, and addresses
    various ancillary matters related to their operation. See ch. 35.82 RCW (housing
    authorities law). Thus, state law applies to SHA except insofar as federal law has
    preempted a given state law. See, e.g., PAWS II, 125 Wn.2d at 265.
    2.      Disclosure and Production under the P RA
    The PRA is a "strongly worded mandate for broad disclosure of public
    records." Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe, 
    90 Wn.2d 123
    , 127, 
    580 P.2d 246
     (1978). The
    PRA is to be "liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed ... to assure
    that the public interest will be fully protected." RCW 42.56.030. Our interpretation
    of the PRA's provisions will continue to be grounded in the PRA's underlying policy
    7
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    and standard of construction. We will also avoid absurd results. Hangartner v. City
    of Seattle, 
    151 Wn.2d 439
    , 448, 
    90 P.3d 26
     (2004). In this difficult area of the law,
    we endeavor to provide clear and workable guidance to agencies insofar as possible.
    See Bellevue John Does 1-11 v. Bellevue Sch. Dist. #405, 
    164 Wn.2d 199
    ,218-19,
    
    189 P.3d 139
     (2008).
    The PRA requires state and local agencies to "make available for public
    inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific
    exemptions of [the PRA] or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of
    specific information or records." RCW 42.56.070(1). A "public record" is defined
    broadly to include "any writing containing information relating to the conduct of
    government or [a govermnental function]" that is "prepared, owned, used, or retained"
    by any state or local agency. RCW 42.56.010(3); see also Confederated Tribes of
    Chehalis Reservation v. Johnson, 
    135 Wn.2d 734
    , 746-47, 
    958 P.2d 260
     (1998).
    The PRA requires each relevant agency to facilitate the full disclosure of public
    records to interested parties. An agency must publish its methods of disclosure and
    the rules that will govern its disclosure of public records. RCW 42.56.040(1). A
    requester cannot be required to comply with any such rules not published unless the
    requester receives actual and timely notice. RCW 42.56.040(2). More generally, an
    agency's applicable rules and regulations must be reasonable and must provide full
    public access, protect public records from damage or disorganization, and prevent
    excessive interference with other essential functions ofthe agency. RCW 42.56.100.
    8
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    The agency's rules and regulations also must "provide for the fullest assistance to
    inquirers and the most timely possible action on requests for information." !d.; see
    also RCW 42.56.520 (agency must respond promptly but can notify requester it needs
    a reasonable amount of time to determine appropriate further response). An agency
    must explain and justify any withholding, in whole or in part, of any requested public
    records. RCW 42.56.070(1), .210(3), .520. Silent withholding is prohibited. Rental
    Hous. Ass 'n v. City of Des Moines, 
    165 Wn.2d 525
    , 537, 
    199 P.3d 393
     (2009); PAWS
    II, 125 Wn.2d at 270. Finally, agency actions taken or challenged under the PRA are
    subject to de novo review, and any person "who prevails against an agency" is
    awarded costs and fees and, in the discretion of the court, a statutory penalty. RCW
    42.56.550(4).
    The PRA's mandate for broad disclosure is not absolute. The PRA contains
    numerous exemptions that protect certain information or records from disclosure and
    the PRA also incorporates any "other statute" that prohibits disclosure of information
    or records. See RCW 42.56.070, .230-.480, .600-.610. 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.
    See Limstrom v. Ladenburg, 
    136 Wn.2d 595
    , 607, 
    963 P.2d 869
     (1998).
    Exemptions are to be narrowly construed and limited in effect. First, the
    PRA' s purpose of open government remains paramount, and thus, the PRA directs
    that its exemptions must be narrowly construed. RCW 42.56.030. Second, the PRA
    9
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    provides that exemptions "are inapplicable to the extent that information, the
    disclosure of which would violate personal privacy or vital governmental interests,
    can be deleted from the specific records sought." RCW 42.56.210(1); see also RCW
    42.56.070. We have interpreted this redaction provision to mean that an agency must
    produce otherwise exempt records insofar as redaction renders any and all exemptions
    inapplicable. SeePAWS II, 125 Wn.2d at 261 ("Portions of records which do not
    come under a specific exemption must be disclosed."); Hearst, 
    90 Wn.2d at 132
    (noting that exemptions are "inapplicable to the extent that exempt materials in the
    record 'can be deleted"' (quoting formerRCW 42.17.310(2) (1977))). Ifitis
    information within a record that is exempted, such information usually can be
    effectively redacted. On the other hand, if a type of record is exempted then
    meaningful redaction generally is impossible, unless redaction actually can transform
    the record into one that is outside the scope of the exemption. For example, a
    document containing attorney work product may be exempted as a "[r]ecord[] that ...
    would not be available ... under the rules of pretrial discovery," RCW 42.56.290, but
    redaction might transform the record into one that actually would be available in
    pretrial discovery, and thus, into a different type of record-one that no longer falls
    under the relevant exemption and which would have to be disclosed in redacted form.
    See Sanders v. State, 
    169 Wn.2d 827
    , 854, 858, 
    240 P.3d 120
     (2010). As to most
    record exemptions, however, such transformation will be impossible. See, e.g., RCW
    42.56.370 (exempting "[c]lient records maintained by an agency that is a domestic
    10
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    violence program"). Finally, even records that are otherwise exempt may be
    inspected or copied if a court finds "that the exemption of such records is clearly
    unnecessary to protect any individual's right of privacy or any vital governmental
    function." RCW 42.56.210(2); see Oliver v. Harborview Med Ctr., 
    94 Wn.2d 559
    ,
    567-68, 
    618 P.2d 76
     (1980) (burden shifts to the party seeking disclosure to establish
    exemption is clearly unnecessary).
    The PRA contains numerous information and record exemptions developed
    over time and narrowly tailored to specific situations in which privacy rights or vital
    governmental interests require protection. In all, the PRA currently contains 141
    exemptions. See RCW 42.56.230-.480, .600-.610. The vast majority of these
    exemptions are categorical, exempting without limit a particular type of information
    or record. See, e.g., RCW 42.56.230(5) (exempting "debit card numbers"). A limited
    number of these exemptions are conditional, exempting a particular type of
    information or record but only insofar as an identified privacy right or vital
    governmental interest is demonstrably threatened in a given case. See, e.g., RCW
    42.56.240(2) (exempting "[i]nformation revealing the identity of persons who are ...
    victims of crime ... if disclosure would endanger any person's life, physical safety, or
    property").
    In the case of a categorical exemption, the legislature has established a
    presumption that the specified type of information or record generally warrants
    exemption. That presumption can be overcome only if a court finds the exemption is
    11
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    "clearly unnecessary" to protect any privacy rights or vital govermnental interests in a
    particular case. RCW 42.56.210(2). Otherwise, an agency's application of a
    categorical exemption must be upheld, so long as the agency has accurately identified
    the nature of the specified information or record. See, e.g., Lindeman v. Kelso Sch.
    Dist. No. 458, 
    162 Wn.2d 196
    , 201, 
    172 P.3d 329
     (2007).
    In the case of a conditional exemption, specified information or records must
    be protected, but in furtherance of only certain identified interests, and only insofar as
    those identified interests are demonstrably threatened in a given case. Application of
    a conditional exemption will be upheld if the agency has accurately identified the
    nature of the specified information or record and properly determined that an
    identified interest must be protected in the given case. See, e.g., Bellevue John Does,
    164 Wn.2d at 210.
    The distinction between categorical and conditional exemptions is sometimes
    blurry, for numerous reasons. First, determining whether specific information or
    records fall within a given categorical exemption may well require a consideration of
    privacy or govermnental interests. After all, our interpretation of the scope of a given
    categorical exemption often will depend at least in part on its apparent purposes. See
    Hearst, 
    90 Wn.2d at 133
    . And some categorical exemptions distinguish types of
    information or records based on characteristics tied up with privacy or governmental
    interests. See, e.g., Lindeman, 
    162 Wn.2d at 202
     (defining exempted "personal
    information" as "information peculiar or proper to private concerns" (emphasis
    12
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    added)). If the application of a seemingly categorical exemption ever actually
    depends upon a case-by-case evaluation of the need to protect a particular privacy
    right or vital governmental interest, the exemption then acts as a conditional
    exemption. Second, in the context of conditional exemptions, determining the need to
    protect an identified interest is sometimes entrusted to an agency's discretion, which
    renders the conditional exemption effectively categorical on review. See Newman v.
    King County, 
    133 Wn.2d 565
    , 574-75, 
    947 P.2d 712
     (1997) ("This exemption allows
    the law enforcement agency, not the courts, to determine what information, if any, is
    essential to solve a case."). Finally, some exemptions are ambiguous and thus
    difficult to classify. See, e.g., RCW 42.56.300(1) (exempting "[r]ecords, maps, or
    other information identifying the location of archaeological sites in order to avoid the
    looting or depredation of such sites" (emphasis added)); RCW 42.56.420(3)
    (exempting "[i]nformation compiled ... in the development of ... comprehensive
    safe school plans ... to the extent that they identify specific vulnerabilities").
    The blurry distinction between categorical and conditional exemptions should
    not be surprising, given that the PRA is a complex and often confusing statutory
    framework that is the result of numerous legislative enactments and now contains over
    140 varied exemptions. In most instances, however, the distinction does remain clear.
    Compare RCW 42.56.240(6) (exempting the "statewide gang database"), andRCW
    42.56.250(1) (exempting "[t]est questions, scoring keys, and other examination data
    used to administer a license, employment, or academic examination"), with RCW
    13
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    42.56.230(4)(b) (exempting "[i]nformation required of any taxpayer ... if the
    disclosure ... [would] violate the taxpayer's right to privacy or result in unfair
    competitive disadvantage"), and RCW 42.56.270(1) (exempting "[v ]aluable formulae
    ... when disclosure would produce private gain and public loss"). In every instance,
    the relevant question is simply whether applying the exemption requires a
    particularized finding of the need to protect a privacy right or a vital governmental
    interest. If so, the exemption is conditional and applies if and only if there is such a
    need in the given case; if the exemption is not conditional, then the exemption is
    categorical and it applies outright to all information or records included within the
    general category specified.
    A list of the 141 current PRA exemptions, preliminarily sorted into relevant
    types, is included as an appendix to this opinion. The list includes (1) categorical-
    information exemptions, (2) categorical-record exemptions, (3) categorical-hybrid
    exemptions (exempting both information and records), (4) conditional-information
    exemptions, (5) conditional-record exemptions, and (6) conditional-hybrid
    exemptions. The list also includes four ambiguous exemptions that will require
    serious consideration and construction prior to any attempt at appropriate grouping.
    Further review may also disclose that an exemption listed in one group has been
    sorted incorrectly and actually belongs in another group. But this preliminary sorting
    of exemptions still should prove useful to agencies trying to navigate and comply with
    the PRA. Agencies should also be aware that many exemptions contain specified
    14
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    limitations, which must be followed when relevant. See, e.g., RCW 42.56.360(1 )U)
    (exempting "documents ... received pursuant to a wellness program under RCW
    41.04.362, but not statistical reports that do not identify an individual").
    In sum, an agency facing a request for disclosure under the PRA should take
    the following steps: First, determine whether any public records are responsive to the
    request-if not, the PRA does not apply. Second, insofar as certain public records are
    responsive, determine whether any exemptions apply generally to those types of
    records or to any of the types of information contained therein. An agency should be
    sure to consider any specified limitations to an exemption when discerning the
    exemption's scope of potential application. If no exemption applies generally to the
    relevant types of records or information, the requested public records must be
    disclosed. Third, if an exemption applies generally to a relevant type of information
    or record, then determine whether the exemption is categorical or conditional. If the
    exemption is conditional and the condition is not satisfied in the given case, the
    records must be disclosed. Fourth, if the exemption is categorical, or if the exemption
    is conditional and the condition is satisfied, then the agency must consider whether the
    exemption applies to entire records or only to certain information contained therein.
    If the exemption applies only to certain information, then the agency must consider
    whether the exempted information can be redacted from the records such that no
    exemption applies (and some modicum of information remains). If the exemption
    applies to entire records, then those records are exempted and need not be disclosed,
    15
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    unless redaction can transform the record into one that is not exempted (and some
    modicum of information remains). If effective redaction is possible, records must be
    so redacted and disclosed. Otherwise, disclosure is not required under the PRA.
    These are the indispensable steps that an agency should take in order to properly
    respond to a PRA request. These steps are visually represented in the flowchart
    contained in figure 1.
    16
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    Figure 1. Determining
    whether disclosure is
    required under the PRA
    Categoric.al
    ~onnation
    Reco'd'
    17
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    The "clearly unnecessary" inquiry under RCW 42.56.21 0(2) serves in rare
    cases to judicially override exemptions that otherwise apply to a specified type of
    information or record. The standard is quite high and is relevant to all categorical
    exemptions but only some conditional exemptions. In the case of a categorical
    exemption, all information or records of a specified nature are presumed exempt
    unless a court finds the exemption clearly unnecessary in a given instance. In the case
    of a conditional exemption, if the need to protect an identified interest is reviewed de
    novo, a court will not consider whether the conditional exemption is "clearly
    unnecessary" because the conditional exemption will be applicable in the first place
    only if it is necessary to protect an identified interest. However, if determining the
    need to protect an identified interest is vested in the discretion of an agency, it may be
    necessary for a court to consider whether the conditional exemption is "clearly
    unnecessary" under the circumstances, or in other words, whether the agency has
    abused its wide discretion.
    The foregoing discussion should provide adequate guidance to agencies such as
    SHAin responding to requests for public records. Taking into consideration both the
    relevant context of cooperative federalism and the overarching framework of the
    PRA, we now turn to whether SHA complied with the PRA in responding to RAC's
    request for grievance hearing decisions.
    18
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    B.        Application
    SHA violated the PRA. Initially, the silent withholding of the unredacted
    grievance hearing decisions was a violation. But even beyond SHA's improper
    silence, the withholding itselfwas also in violation ofthe PRA. The heart ofSHA's
    position-that the unredacted grievance hearing decisions within tenant files are
    entirely exempted from redaction or disclosure because they contain personal
    information of welfare recipients-is untenable. These public records do contain
    exempted information about welfare recipients, but the records remain subject to
    disclosure insofar as redaction can render all exemptiol).s inapplicable. Relevant
    federal regulations do not prohibit production of the documents or preempt the PRA.
    Thus, SHA must redact and produce these documents pursuant to the PRA. The trial
    court acted within its broad discretion in ordering SHA to produce responsive
    documents in electronic format, in also ordering SHA to establish policies and
    procedures necessary to ensuring compliance with the PRA, and in awarding statutory
    damages.
    1.      PRA Redaction Requirement
    SHA hearing decisions are public records subject to the PRA's disclosure
    requirements. The hearing decisions relate to the provision of public housing, and
    SHA (a local agency) retains the documents in individual tenant files. Thus, the
    hearing decisions are public records. See RCW 42.56.010(3). SHA is correct that the
    hearing decisions are exempt from blanket production insofar as they include
    19
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    "[p]ersonal information in ... files maintained for ... welfare recipients." RCW
    42.56.230(1). The parties do not dispute that the grievance hearing decisions do
    contain such information. But the PRA requires production of otherwise exempted
    records insofar as exempt information can be deleted. See RCW 42.56.070(1),
    .210(1).
    SHA argues that the PRA' s redaction requirement simply does not apply to
    records containing personal information and maintained in welfare-recipient files.
    SHA reasons that such information is not subject to redaction because it is exempted
    categorically, unlike, for example, "[p]ersonal information in files maintained for
    [public] employees," which is exempted "to the extent that disclosure would violate
    their right to privacy." RCW 42.56.230(3). SHA's argument is thus that the PRA's
    redaction requirement, which applies only to information "the disclosure of which
    would violate personal privacy or vital govermnental interests," RCW 42.56.210(1),
    does not apply to any categorical exemptions and applies only to conditional
    exemptions (i.e., exemptions that explicitly identify relevant privacy rights or
    governmental interests). SHA's interpretation of the PRA reflects a failure to
    appreciate the overall framework of the PRA, and SHA is clearly wrong, for
    numerous reasons.
    First, SHA ignores that all exemptions, including categorical exemptions, are
    intended to protect personal privacy and govermnental interests. See Limstrom, 
    136 Wn.2d at 607
    ; RCW 42.56.210(2).
    20
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    Second, SHA ignores that the redaction provision in the PRA explicitly lists
    only two exemptions that are not subject to the PRA' s redaction requirement, and the
    welfare recipient exemption is not on that list. RCW 42.56.210(1).
    Third, the two exemptions listed as not being subject to the redaction
    requirement are themselves categorical, and explicitly removing those provisions from
    the scope of the redaction requirement would have been superfluous if SHA's
    interpretation were correct.
    Fourth, we already have held that the PRA' s cmmnand to redact information
    "that would violate personal privacy or governmental interests" simply means that an
    agency must redact to overcome any and all relevant exemptions, insofar as possible.
    See Hearst, 
    90 Wn.2d at 132-33
    ; PAWS II, 125 Wn.2d at 261. Requiring anything
    more or different would be too complicated, unworkable, and time-consuming for
    agencies operating under the PRA. Insofar as redaction can render all exemptions
    inapplicable, the PRA requires disclosure.
    Fifth, we already have applied the redaction requirement to numerous
    categorical exemptions. See Sanders, 
    169 Wn.2d at 858
    ; Hearst, 
    90 Wn.2d at 132
    ;
    see also Prison Legal News, Inc. v. Dep 't ofCorr., 
    154 Wn.2d 628
    , 645, 
    115 P.3d 316
    (2005). In fact, perhaps most importantly, we already have explained that the
    redaction requirement applies to the very exemption provision at issue in this case.
    See Oliver, 
    94 Wn.2d at 567
    .
    21
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    Sixth, ifSHA's interpretation were correct, only a small number ofthe PRA's
    numerous exemptions (that is, only conditional exemptions) would be subject to the
    redaction requirement, contrary to the overriding purpose of the PRA and the
    legislature's admonition that the PRA "shall be liberally construed and it exemptions
    narrowly construed ... .'' RCW 42.56.030.
    Seventh, SHA provides no explanation of why the legislature would want to
    exempt absolutely from disclosure any records initially containing exempt personal
    information-even if redaction could render the exemption inapplicable. SHA's
    reading makes no sense, particularly when considering the wide range of categorical
    exemptions in the PRA, some of which are quite limited in scope. For example, RCW
    42.56.350(1) exempts certain "federal social security number[s] ... maintained in the
    files of the department of health," and under SHA's intepretation, any record
    containing such a social security number would be absolutely exempted from
    production, notwithstanding the fact that the Social Security number could simply be
    redacted. If the legislature actually had been interested in protecting the entire records
    in question, presumably it would have said so.
    SHA's suggested approach to exemption and redaction is untenable. If
    redaction sufficiently protects privacy and governmental interests-that is, if
    redaction can render all exemptions inapplicable-disclosure is required. Thus,
    SHA's unredacted grievance hearing decisions are not absolutely exempt from
    production and remain subject to the PRA's redaction requirement.
    22
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    2.      Federal Exemption or Preemption
    Having rejected SHA's untenable interpretation of the PRA, we now consider
    the significance of applicable federal regulations because SHA's grievance hearing
    decisions are created pursuant to federal law. The applicable federal regulations do
    not exempt the unredacted grievance hearing decisions from disclosure under the
    PRA. Nor do the applicable regulations preempt the PRA under the supremacy clause
    of the federal constitution. The PRA thus applies to the unredacted grievance hearing
    decisions, which are public records, and mandates redaction and disclosure.
    Applicable federal regulations do not exempt the grievance hearing decisions
    from public disclosure. This inquiry is relevant because the PRA exempts from
    disclosure records that are protected by federal regulations. See Ameriquest Mortgage
    Co. v. Wash. State Office ofAtt'y Gen., 
    170 Wn.2d 418
    ,439-40, 
    241 P.3d 1245
    (2010); RCW 42.56.070. In this case, applicable federal regulations establish only
    procedural minimums, requiring each housing authority to provide redacted copies of
    prior decisions to assist tenants facing imminent adverse action-the regulations do
    not prohibit or otherwise regulate disclosure of public records. Specifically, 24 C.P.R.
    § 966.57(a) provides that each written hearing decision "shall be sent to ... the PHA,"
    and the PHA "shall retain a copy of the decision in the tenant's folder" and retain
    another copy "with all names and identifying references deleted" on file and "made
    available for inspection by a prospective complainant, his representative, or the
    hearing panel or hearing officer." This regulation does not prohibit disclosure in any
    23
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    way; it merely ensures a limited form of disclosure to a limited class of persons in
    order to promote fairness within each housing authority's grievance hearing process.
    In the context of cooperative federalism, this minimum requirement allows each state
    agency to conduct the rest of its disclosure practices in accordance with relevant state
    law. See 
    42 U.S.C. § 1437
    (a)(1)(C). In some states, disclosure of such materials
    might be entirely prohibited; in that case, the federal regulation ensures a certain type
    of disclosure to further the grievance hearing process while allowing the state agency
    to otherwise restrict access, thus causing a minimal intrusion upon state and local
    laws. By the same token, the regulation does not prevent SHA from disclosing
    grievance hearing documents in accordance with the PRA. HUD promulgated this
    regulation without commenting on its particular significance. See 
    40 Fed. Reg. 33,406
    , 33,406-08 (Aug. 7, 1975). In related contexts, however, HUD has made clear
    that it intends for state laws to generally govern disclosure and production of housing
    authority documents. See 
    56 Fed. Reg. 51,560
    , 51,566 (Oct. 11, 1991) ("The statute
    and rule do not purport to establish a Federal privilege against discovery of directly
    relevant PHA documents .... However, the statute and rule also do not override
    other independently recognized privileges."); see also 
    53 Fed. Reg. 33,216
    , 33,281
    (Aug. 30, 1988) ("The rule does not disturb the PHA's right to deny production of
    privileged documents in accordance with State law . . . . At the same time, however,
    the rule does not establish ... any rules governing the circumstances in which a
    privilege arises. Rather, the rule defers to State law ... and therefore to State policy
    24
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    underlying the grant or denial of a privilege."), withdrawn on other grounds, 
    53 Fed. Reg. 44,876
     (Nov. 7, 1988). We have held that exemptions outside of the PRA must
    be explicit, and there is no explicit exemption here. See PAWS II, 125 Wn.2d at 262.
    Nor do the applicable federal regulations preempt the PRA. Federal
    preemption occurs only if ( 1) federal law expressly preempts state law, (2) Congress
    has occupied an entire field of regulation to the exclusion of any state laws, or (3)
    state law conflicts with federal law due to either impossibility of joint compliance or
    state law acting as an obstacle to accomplishment of a federal purpose. SeePA WS II,
    125 Wn.2d at 265. In this case there is no express preemption, and given the nature of
    cooperative federalism, no field preemption either. There is also no conflict
    preemption, given that the applicable regulations do not prohibit disclosure of the
    unredacted grievance hearing decisions and the PRA does not act as an obstacle to any
    federal purpose. There is a strong presumption against finding that federal law has
    preempted state law. State v. Kalakosky, 
    121 Wn.2d 525
    , 546, 
    852 P.2d 1064
     (1993).
    Further, '"the case for federal preemption becomes a less persuasive one"' within a
    system of cooperative federalism, where "'coordinated state and federal efforts exist
    within a complementary administrative framework,'" as in this case. State of
    Washington v. Bowen, 815 F .2d 549, 557 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting NY. Dep 't of Soc.
    Servs.v. Dublino, 
    413 U.S. 405
    , 421, 
    93 S. Ct. 2507
    , 
    37 L. Ed. 2d 688
     (1973)). The
    PRA applies to SHA's grievance hearing decisions.
    25
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    In sum, SHA' s unredacted grievance hearing decisions are subject to disclosure
    under the PRA. The documents are public records that are subject to the PRA's
    redaction requirement. Applicable federal regulations neither exempt the documents
    from disclosure nor preempt the operation of the PRA. Thus, SHA is obligated to
    produce the grievance hearing decisions, redacted only to exclude personal
    information of welfare recipients for whom the documents are maintained.
    3.       Injunctive Relief
    The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering injunctive relief. The
    trial court ordered SHA to produce properly redacted copies of the grievance hearing
    decisions in electronic format. The trial court also ordered SHA to publish procedures
    regarding public records requests; to publish a list of applicable exemptions; and to
    establish policies governing redaction, explanations of withholding, and electronic
    records. The trial court acted within its "broad discretionary power to shape and
    fashion injunctive relief to fit the particular facts, circumstances, and equities of the
    case before it." Brown v. Voss, 
    105 Wn.2d 366
    , 372, 
    715 P.2d 514
     (1986) (emphasis
    omitted).
    An injunction is a remedy that "'should be used sparingly and only in a clear
    and plain case.'" Kucera, 140 Wn.2d at 209 (quoting 42 AM. JUR. 2d Injunctions § 2,
    at 728 (1969)). A party seeking an injunction must show (1) a clear legal or equitable
    right, (2) a well-grounded fear of immediate invasion of that right, and (3) actual and
    substantial injury as a result. Wash. Fed'n of State Employees v. State, 
    99 Wn.2d 878
    ,
    26
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    888, 
    665 P.2d 1337
     (1983). On appellate review, a "trial court's decision to grant an
    injunction and its decision regarding the terms of the injunction are reviewed for
    abuse of discretion." Kucera, 140 Wn.2d at 209. Further, a trial court's decision "is
    presumed to be correct and should be sustained absent an affirmative showing of
    error." State v. Wade, 
    138 Wn.2d 460
    , 464, 
    979 P.2d 850
     (1999).
    The trial court did not abuse its discretion. RAC has a clear right to appropriate
    production of requested documents, SHA has refused to produce those documents,
    and RAC remains without the public records it has requested. On numerous occasions
    we have allowed detailed "disclosure orders" in PRA cases to remedy an agency's
    failure to comply with the PRA. In re Request ofRosier, 
    105 Wn.2d 606
    , 618, 
    717 P.2d 1353
     (1986); see also, e.g., PAWS II, 125 Wn.2d at 250; Brouillet v. Cowles
    Publ'g Co., 
    114 Wn.2d 788
    , 792, 801, 
    791 P.2d 526
     (1990).
    Ordering SHA to undertake particular redactions and then to produce the
    redacted documents in a particular format was a legitimate way for the trial court to
    resolve the precise controversy before it, which arose out ofRAC's request for the
    documents in question and SHA's failure to respond appropriately. RAC has
    continued to express its preference for electronic copies, and SHA has acknowledged
    that producing electronic copies costs SHA no more than producing hard copies.
    Neither party challenges the trial court's instructions regarding the precise
    redactions to be made in this case. Thus, without directly addressing that issue, we
    27
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    affirm the trial court's decision that under the PRA, SHA must redact the names and
    identifying information of all SHA tenants from the grievance hearing decisions.
    The trial court also acted within its discretion in ordering SHA to publish
    procedures regarding public records requests; to publish a list of applicable
    exemptions; and to establish policies governing redaction, explanations of
    withholding, and electronic records. SHA's total failure to establish reasonable and
    effective policies and procedures to govern disclosure of public records was in
    violation of the PRA, see RCW 42.56.040, .070, clearly contributed to SHA's failure
    to adequately respond to RAC's immediate request for public records, and would
    contribute to similar failures going forward. The trial court thus found it necessary to
    order SHA to establish such policies and procedures in order to ensure that RAC was
    provided complete relief. See Dare v. Mt. Vernon Inv. Co., 
    121 Wash. 117
    , 120, 
    208 P. 609
     (1922) ("[A] court of equity ... has the right to grant such ancillary or
    incidental relief as will be necessary to make the relief sought complete."). SHA has
    not affirmatively shown that this was an abuse of discretion.
    In sum, the trial court acted within its discretion in ordering SHA to properly
    redact and electronically produce the grievance hearing decisions that RAC has
    requested and to establish needed policies and procedures to govern proper disclosure
    of public records.
    28
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    4.      Statutory Damages and Fees
    We affirm the trial court's award of statutory damages. SHA does not dispute
    the amount of that award, only whether statutory damages were authorized at all.
    Because SHA did violate the PRA, the award of statutory damages was indeed
    authorized. See RCW 42.56.550( 4).
    We also award RAC its attorney fees on appeal. Under the PRA, any person
    who "prevails against an agency" in seeking the right to inspect or copy records "shall
    be awarded all costs, including reasonable attorney fees, incurred in connection with
    such legal action." 
    Id.
     This applies to fees incurred on appeal. See, e.g., PAWS II,
    125 Wn.2d at 271.
    IV. CONCLUSION
    We uphold the trial court's orders requiring SHA to redact and disclose the
    grievance hearing decisions in electronic format, directing SHA to establish necessary
    policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the PRA, and awarding RAC
    statutory damages. We also award fees to RAC on appeal. The matter is remanded to
    the trial court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
    29
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    APPENDIX
    CURRENT PUBLIC RECORDS ACT EXEMPTIONS
    (Chapter 42.56 RCW)
    I.   CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS
    a. Categorical-Information Exemptions (certain types of information
    exempted categorically)
    1. "Personal information in any files maintained for students in
    public schools, patients or clients of public institutions or public
    health agencies, or welfare recipients" .230(1)
    2. "Personal information ... for a participant in a public or nonprofit
    program serving or pertaining to children, adolescents, or
    students" .230(2)
    3. "Information required of any taxpayer in connection with the
    assessment or collection of any tax if the disclosure ... [would
    be] prohibited to such persons by RCW 84.08.210, 82.32.330,
    84.40.020, 84.40.340, or any ordinance authorized under RCW
    35.1 02.145" .230(4)(a)
    4. "Credit card numbers, debit card numbers, electronic check
    numbers, card expiration dates, or bank or other financial account
    numbers" .230(5)
    5. "Personal and financial information related to a small loan"
    .230(6)
    6. "Information provided under RCW 46.20.111 that indicates that
    an applicant declined to register with the selective service system"
    .230(7)(b)
    7. "Information revealing the identity of child victims of sexual
    assault who are under age eighteen" .240( 5)
    8. "Data from the electronic sales tracking system" .240(7)
    9. "Information submitted to the statewide unified sex offender
    notification and registration program ... by a person for the
    purpose of receiving notification regarding a registered sex
    offender" .240(8)
    30
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    10. "Personally identifying information collected by law enforcement
    agencies pursuant to local security alarm system programs and
    vacation crime watch programs" .240(9)
    11. "Test questions, scoring keys, and other examination data used to
    administer a license, employment, or academic examination"
    .250(1)
    12. "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, residential
    telephone numbers, personal wireless telephone numbers,
    personal electronic mail 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" .250(3)
    13. "Information that identifies a person who, while an agency
    employee: (a) Seeks advice, under an informal process established
    by the employing agency, in order to ascertain his or her rights in
    connection with a possible unfair practice under chapter 49.60
    RCW against the person; and (b) requests his or her identity or
    any identifying information not be disclosed" .250(4)
    14. "[S]alary and benefit information for maritime employees
    collected from private employers" .250(7)
    15. "Photographs and month and year of birth in the personnel files of
    employees and workers of criminal justice agencies" .250(8)
    16. "[T]he contents of real estate appraisals, made for or by any
    agency relative to the acquisition or sale of property, until the
    project or prospective sale is abandoned or ... all of the property
    has been acquired or ... sold" .260
    17. "Financial information supplied ... for the purpose of qualifying
    to submit a bid or proposal for (a) a ferry system construction or
    repair contract ... or (b) highway construction or improvement"
    .270(2)
    18. "Financial information, business plans, examination reports, and
    any information produced or obtained in evaluating or examining
    31
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    a business and industrial development corporation organized or
    seeking certification under chapter 31.24 RCW" .270(5)
    19. "Financial and valuable trade information under RCW 51.36.120"
    .270(7)
    20. "Financial, commercial, operations, and technical and research
    information and data submitted to or obtained by the clean
    Washington center in applications for, or delivery of, program
    services under chapter 70.95H RCW" .270(8)
    21. "Financial and commercial information requested by the public
    stadium authority from any person or organization that leases or
    uses the stadium and exhibition center" .270(9)
    22. "Financial information ... supplied by or on behalf of a person ..
    . related to an application for a horse racing license ... liquor
    license, gambling license, or lottery retail license" .270(1 O)(a)
    23. "Proprietary data, trade secrets, or other information that relates
    to: (a) A vendor's unique methods of conducting business; (b) data
    unique to the product or services of the vendor; or (c) determining
    prices or rates to be charged for services, submitted by any vendor
    to the department of social and health services for purposes of the
    development, acquisition, or implementation of state purchased
    health care" .270(11)
    24. "Financial and proprietary information ... provided to the
    department of commerce pursuant to RCW 43.330.050(8) ... [or]
    provided to the department of commerce or the office of the
    governor in connection with the siting ... of that person's
    business and until a siting decision is made, identifying
    information of any person supplying information ... and the
    locations being considered" .270(12)
    25. "Financial and proprietary information submitted to or obtained
    by the department of ecology or the authority created under
    chapter 70.95N RCW to implement chapter 70.95N RCW"
    .270(13)
    26. "Financial and commercial information provided as evidence to
    the department of licensing as required by RCW 19.112.110 or
    19.112.120" .270(15)
    27. "Information gathered under chapter 19.85 RCW or RCW
    34.05.328 that can be identified to a particular business" .270(19)
    32
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    28. "Financial and commercial information supplied by or on behalf
    of a person, firm, corporation, or entity under chapter 28B.95
    RCW relating to the purchase or sale of tuition units and contracts
    for the purchase of multiple tuition units" .320(2)
    29. "Individually identifiable information received by the workforce
    training and education coordinating board for research or
    evaluation purposes" .320(3)
    30. "The residential addresses and residential telephone numbers of
    the customers of a public utility contained in the records or lists
    held by the public utility of which they are customers" .330(2)
    31. "The personally identifying information of current or former
    participants or applicants in a paratransit or other transit service
    operated for the benefit of persons with disabilities or elderly
    persons" .330(4)
    32. "The personally identifying information of persons who acquire
    and use transit passes or other fare payment media including, but
    not limited to, stored value smart cards and magnetic strip cards"
    .330(5)
    33. "Any information obtained by governmental agencies that is
    collected by the use of a motor carrier intelligent transportation
    system or any comparable information equipment attached to a
    truck, tractor, or trailer" .330(6)
    34. "The personally identifying information of persons who acquire
    and use transponders or other technology to facilitate payment of
    tolls" .330(7)
    3 5. "The personally identifying information of persons who acquire
    and use a driver's license or identicard that includes a radio
    frequency identification chip or similar technology to facilitate
    border crossing" .330(8)
    36. "Membership lists or lists of members or owners of interests of
    units in timeshare projects, subdivisions, camping resorts,
    condominiums, land developments, or cmmnon-interest
    communities affiliated with such projects, regulated by the
    department of licensing, in the files or possession of the
    department" .340
    37. "The federal social security number of individuals governed under
    chapter 18.130 RCW maintained in the files ofthe department of
    health" .350(1)
    33
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    38. "The current residential address and current residential telephone
    number of a health care provider governed under chapter 18.13 0
    RCW maintained in the files of the department" .350(2)
    39. "Information obtained by the board of pharmacy as provided in
    RCW 69.45.090" .360(1)(a)
    40. "Information obtained by the board of pharmacy or the
    department of health and its representatives as provided in RCW
    69.41.044, 69.41.280, and 18.64.420'' .360(1)(b)
    41. "Proprietary financial and commercial information that the
    submitting entity, with review by the department of health,
    specifically identifies at the time it is submitted and that is
    provided to or obtained by the department of health in connection
    with an application for, or the supervision of, an antitrust
    exemption" .360(1)(d)(i)
    42. "Information obtained by the department of health under chapter
    70.225 RCW" .360(1)(g)
    43. "Information collected by the department of health under chapter
    70.245 RCW except as provided in RCW 70.245.150" .360(1)(h)
    44. "Cardiac and stroke system performance data submitted to
    national, state, or local data collection systems" .360(1 )(i)
    45. "Business-related information under RCW 15.86.110" .380(1)
    46. "Information provided under RCW 15.54.362" .380(2)
    47. "Consigrunent information contained on phytosanitary certificates
    issued by the department of agriculture ... or federal
    phytosanitary certificates ... or on applications for phytosanitary
    certification required by the department of agriculture" .3 80(4)
    48. "Information obtained regarding the purchases, sales, or
    production of an individual American ginseng grower or dealer,
    except for providing reports to the United States fish and wildlife
    service under RCW 15.19.080" .380(6)
    49. "Information collected regarding packers and shippers of fruits
    and vegetables for the issuance of certificates of compliance under
    RCW 15.17.140(2) and 15.17.143" .380(7)
    50. "Information submitted by an individual or business to the
    department of agriculture ... for the purpose of herd inventory
    management for animal disease traceability" .3 80(9)
    34
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    51. "Results of testing for animal diseases from samples submitted by
    or at the direction of the animal owner or his or her designee that
    can be identified to a particular business or individual" .380(10)
    52. "Names of individuals residing in emergency or transitional
    housing that are furnished to the department of revenue or a
    county assessor in order to substantiate a claim for property tax
    exemption under RCW 84.36.043" .390
    53. "Information obtained and exempted or withheld from public
    inspection by the health care authority under RCW 41.05.026"
    .400(2)
    54. "The names and individual identification data of either all owners
    or all insureds, or both, received by the insurance commissioner
    under chapter 48.102 RCW" .400(3)
    55. "Information provided under RCW 48.30A.045 through
    48.30A.060" .400(4)
    56. "Information provided under RCW 48.05.510 through 48.05.535,
    48.43.200 through 48.43.225, 48.44.530 through 48.44.555, and
    48.46.600 through 48.46.625" .400(5)
    57. "Information provided to the insurance commissioner under RCW
    48.110.040(3)" .400(7)
    58.    "Data filed under RCW 48.140.020, 48.140.030, 48.140.050, and
    7.70.140 that, alone or in combination with any other data, may
    reveal the identity of a claimant, health care provider, health care
    facility, insuring entity, or self-insurer involved in a particular
    claim or a collection of claims" .400(10)
    59. "Information in a filing of usage-based insurance about the usage-
    based component of the rate pursuant to RCW 48.19.040(5)(b)"
    .400(20)
    60. "The security section of transportation system safety and security
    program plans required under RCW 35.21.228, 35A.21.300,
    36.01.210, 36.57.120, 36.57A.l70, and 81.112.180" .420(5)
    61. "The nesting sites or specific locations of endangered species
    designated under RCW 77.12.020, or threatened or sensitive
    species classified by rule of the department of fish and wildlife"
    .430(2)(a)
    62. "Radio frequencies used in, or locational data generated by,
    telemetry studies" .430(2)(b)
    35
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    63. "The personally identifying information of persons who acquire
    recreational licenses under RCW 77.32.010 or commercial
    licenses under chapter 77.65 or 77.70 RCW, except name, address
    of contact used by the department, and type of license,
    endorsement, or tag" .430(3)
    64. "Information that the department of fish and wildlife has received
    or accessed but may not disclose due to confidentiality
    requirements in the Magnuson-Stevens fishery conservation and
    management reauthorization act of2006 (16 U.S.C. Sec.
    1861(h)(3) and (i), and Sec. 1881a(b))" .430(4)
    65. "Information in an application for licensing or a small loan
    endorsement under chapter 31.45 RCW regarding the personal
    residential address, telephone number of the applicant, or financial
    statement" .450
    66. "Information relating to ... [r]ailroad company contracts filed
    prior to July 28, 1991, with the utilities and transportation
    commission under RCW 81.34.070" .480(1)
    67. "Personal information in files maintained in a database created
    under RCW 43.07 .360" .480(2)
    68. "Data collected by the department of social and health services for
    the reports required by section 8, chapter 231, Laws of 2003,
    except as compiled in the aggregate and reported to the senate and
    house of representatives" .480(3)
    69. "The following information in plans, records, and reports obtained
    by state and local agencies from dairies, animal feeding
    operations, and concentrated animal feeding operations, not
    required to apply for a national pollutant discharge elimination
    system permit is disclosable only in ranges that provide
    meaningful information to the public while ensuring
    confidentiality of business information regarding: (1) Number of
    animals; (2) volume of livestock nutrients generated; (3) number
    of acres covered by the plan or used for land application of
    livestock nutrients; (4) livestock nutrients transferred to other
    persons; and (5) crop yields" .610
    b. Categorical-Record Exemptions (certain types of records exempted
    categorically)
    1. "Documents and related materials and scanned images of
    documents and related materials used to prove identity, age,
    36
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    residential address, social security number, or other personal
    information required to apply for a driver's license or identicard"
    .230(7)(a)
    2. "Any records of investigative reports prepared by any ... law
    enforcement agency pertaining to sex offenses ... which have
    been transferred to the Washington association of sheriffs and
    police chiefs for permanent electronic retention and retrieval"
    .240(3)
    3. "License applications under RCW 9.41.070" .240(4)
    4. "The statewide gang database" .240(6)
    5. "All applications for public employment, including the names of
    applicants, resumes, and other related materials submitted with
    respect to an applicant" .250(2)
    6. "Investigative records compiled by an employing agency
    conducting an active and ongoing investigation of a possible
    unfair practice ... or of a possible violation of ... laws
    prohibiting discrimination in employment" .250(5)
    7. "Criminal history records checks for board staff finalist
    candidates" .250( 6)
    8. "Internal control documents, independent auditors' reports and
    financial statements, and supporting documents: (i) Of house-
    banked social card game licensees ... or (ii) submitted by tribes
    with an approved tribal/state compact for class III gaming"
    .270(1 O)(b)
    9. "Farm plans developed by conservation districts ... [or]
    developed under chapter 90.48 RCW" .270(17)
    10. "Preliminary drafts, notes, recommendations, and intra-agency
    memorandums in which opinions are expressed or policies
    formulated or recommended" .280
    11. "Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is
    a party but which records would not be available to another party
    under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the
    superior courts" .290
    12. "Any library record, the primary purpose of which is to maintain
    control of library materials, or to gain access to information, that
    discloses or could be used to disclose the identity of a library
    user" .310
    37
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    13. "Financial disclosures filed by private vocational schools under
    chapters 28B.85 and 28C.10 RCW" .320(1)
    14. "[A]ny records or documents obtained by a state college,
    university, library, or archive through or concerning any gift ...
    the terms of which restrict or regulate public access to those
    records or documents" .320(4)
    15. "The annual declaration of intent filed by parents ... for a child to
    receive home-based instruction" .320(5)
    16. "[R]ecords of any person who belongs to a public utility district or
    a municipally owned electrical utility" .335
    17. "Records of the entity obtained in an action under RCW
    18.71.300 through 18.71.340" .360(1)(e)
    18. "Complaints filed under chapter 18.130 RCW after July 27, 1997,
    to the extent provided in RCW 18.130.095(1)" .360(1)(f)
    19. "All documents, including completed forms, received pursuant to
    a wellness program under RCW 41.04.362" .360(1)U)
    20. "Client records maintained by an agency that is a domestic
    violence program ... or a community sexual assault program or
    services for underserved populations" .370
    21. "Production or sales records required to determine assessment
    levels and actual assessment payments to commodity boards and
    commissions ... or required by the department of agriculture"
    .380(3)
    22. "Financial statements obtained under RCW 16.65.030(1)(d) for
    the purposes of determining whether or not the applicant meets
    the minimum net worth requirements to construct or operate a
    public livestock market" .3 80(8)
    23. "Records of international livestock importation that can be
    identified to a particular animal, business, or individual received
    from the United States department of homeland security or the
    United States department of agriculture that are not disclosable by
    the federal agency under federal law including 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552"
    .380(11)
    24. "Records related to the entry of prohibited agricultural products
    imported into Washington state or that had Washington state as a
    final destination received from the United States department of
    homeland security or the United States department of agriculture
    38
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authori(y, No. 87656-8
    that are not disclosable by the federal agency under federal law
    including 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552" .380(12)
    25. "Records maintained by the board of industrial insurance appeals
    that are related to appeals of crime victims' compensation claims
    filed with the board" .400( 1)
    26. "Confidential and privileged documents obtained or produced by
    the insurance commissioner and identified in RCW 48.37.080"
    .400(13)
    27. "Records maintained by the employment security department and
    subject to chapter 50.13 RCW if provided to another individual or
    organization for operational, research, or evaluation purposes"
    .410
    28. "Discharge papers of a veteran of the armed forces of the United
    States filed at the office of the county auditor before July 1, 2002,
    that have not been commingled with other recorded documents"
    .440(1)
    29. "Discharge papers of a veteran of the armed forces of the United
    States filed at the office of the county auditor before July 1, 2002,
    that have been commingled with other records ... if the veteran
    has recorded a 'request for exemption from public disclosure of
    discharge papers' with the county auditor" .440(2)
    30. "Discharge papers of a veteran filed at the office of the county
    auditor after June 30, 2002" .440(3)
    31. "All records obtained and all reports produced as required by state
    fireworks law, chapter 70.77 RCW" .460
    32. "Records of mediation communications that are privileged under
    chapter 7.07 RCW" .600
    c. Categorical-Hybrid Exemptions (both records and information exempted
    categorically)
    1. "Financial and commercial information and records supplied by
    private persons pertaining to export services ... and by persons
    pertaining to export projects" .270(3)
    2. "Financial and commercial information and records supplied ...
    during application for loans or program services ... or during
    application for economic development loans or program services"
    .270(4)
    39
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    3. "Any production records, mineral assessments, and trade secrets
    submitted by a permit holder, mine operator, or landowner to the
    department of natural resources under RCW 78.44.085" .270(16)
    4. "The names, residential addresses, residential telephone numbers,
    and other individually identifiable records held by an agency in
    relation to a vanpool, carpool, or other ride-sharing program or
    service" .330(3)
    5. "Information and documents created specifically for, and
    collected and maintained by a quality improvement committee ...
    or by a peer review committee ... or by a quality assurance
    committee ... or by a hospital ... for reporting of health care-
    associated infections[,] ... a notification of an incident[,] ... and
    reports regarding adverse events" .360(1 )(c)
    6. "Documents related to infant mortality reviews conducted
    pursuant to RCW 70.05.170 are exempt from disclosure as
    provided for in RCW 70. 05 .17 0(3) [exempting certain records and
    information]" .360(3)(a)
    7. "Financial and commercial information and records supplied by
    persons (a) to the department of agriculture for the purpose of
    conducting a referendum for the potential establishment of a
    commodity board or commission; or (b) to the department of
    agriculture or commodity boards or commissions ... with respect
    to domestic or export marketing activities or individual producer's
    production information" .380(5)
    8. "Examination reports and information obtained by the department
    of financial institutions from banks under RCW 30.04.075, from
    savings banks under RCW 32.04.220, from savings and loan
    associations under RCW 33.04.110, from credit unions under
    RCW 31.12.565, from check cashers and sellers under RCW
    31.45.030(3), and from securities brokers and investment advisers
    under RCW 21.20.1 00" .400( 6)
    9. "Documents, materials, or information obtained by the insurance
    commissioner under RCW 48.02.065" .400(8)
    10. "Documents, materials, or information obtained by the insurance
    commissioner under RCW 48.135.060" .400(11)
    11. "Documents, materials, or information obtained by the insurance
    commissioner under RCW 48.37.060" .400(12)
    40
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    12. "Documents, materials, or information obtained by the insurance
    commissioner under RCW 48.37.140" .400(14)
    13. "Documents, materials, or inforniation obtained by the insurance
    commissioner under RCW 48.17.595" .400(15)
    14. "Documents, materials, or information obtained by the insurance
    commissioner under RCW 48.102.051(1) and 48.102.140 (3) and
    (7)( a)(ii)" .400(16)
    15. "Documents, materials, or information obtained by the insurance
    commissioner in the commissioner's capacity as receiver under
    RCW 48.31.025 and 48.99.017, which are records under the
    jurisdiction and control of the receivership court" .400(17)
    16. "Documents, materials, or information obtained by the insurance
    commissioner under RCW 48.13.151" .400( 18)
    17. "Data, information, and documents provided by a carrier pursuant
    to section 1, chapter 172, Laws of 201 0" .400(19)
    18. "Data, information, and documents, other than those described in
    RCW 48.02.210(2), that are submitted to the office ofthe
    insurance commissioner by an entity providing health care
    coverage pursuant to RCW 28A.400.275 and 48.02.210" .400(21)
    19. "Documents, materials, and information obtained by the insurance
    commissioner under RCW 48.05.385(2)" .403
    20. "All records, documents, data, and other materials obtained under
    the requirements ofRCW 72.09.115 from an existing correctional
    industries class I work program participant or an applicant for a
    proposed new or expanded class I correctional industries work
    program" .470
    II.   CONDITIONAL EXEMPTIONS
    a. Conditional-Information Exemptions (certain types of information
    exempted insofar as identified privacy/governmental interests are
    implicated)
    1. "Personal information in files maintained for employees,
    appointees, or elected officials of any public agency to the extent
    that disclosure wquld violate their right to privacy" .230(3)
    2. "Information required of any taxpayer in connection with the
    assessment or collection of any tax if the disclosure of the
    41
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority~ No. 87656-8
    information to the other persons would ... violate the taxpayer's
    right to privacy or result in unfair competitive disadvantage to the
    taxpayer" .23 0(4)(b)
    3. "Information revealing the identity of persons who are witnesses
    to or victims of crime or who file complaints with investigative,
    law enforcement, or penology agencies ... if disclosure would
    endanger any person's life, physical safety, or property" .240(2)
    4. "Valuable formulae, designs, drawings, [code], and research data
    obtained by any agency within five years ... when disclosure
    would produce private gain and public loss" .270(1)
    5. "Financial and commercial information supplied to the state
    investment board by any person when the information relates to
    the investment of public trust or retirement funds and when
    disclosure would result in loss to such funds or in private loss to
    the providers of this information" .270(6)
    6. "Financial, commercial, operations, and technical and research
    information and data submitted to or obtained by the life sciences
    discovery fund authority in applications for, or delivery of, grants
    under chapter 43.350 RCW, to the extent that such information, if
    revealed, would reasonably be expected to result in private loss to
    the providers of this information" .270(14)
    7. "Financial, commercial, operations, and technical and research
    information and data submitted to or obtained by a health sciences
    and services authority in applications for, or delivery of, grants
    under RCW 35.104.010 through 35.104.060, to the extent that
    such information, if revealed, would reasonably be expected to
    result in private loss to providers of this information" .270(18)
    8. "Financial and commercial information submitted to or obtained
    by the University of Washington ... when the information relates
    to investments in private funds, to the extent that such
    information, if revealed, would reasonably be expected to result in
    loss to the University of Washington consolidated endowment
    fund or to result in private loss to the providers of this
    information" .270(20)
    9. "Financial, commercial, operations, and technical and research
    information and data submitted to or obtained by innovate
    Washington in applications for, or delivery of, grants and loans
    under chapter 43.333 RCW, to the extent that such information, if
    42
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    revealed, would reasonably be expected to result in private loss to
    the providers of this information" .270(21)
    10. "Confidential proprietary and trade secret information provided to
    the commissioner under RCW 48.31 C.020 through 48.31 C.050
    and 48.31 C.070" .400(9)
    11. "Those portions of records assembled, prepared, or maintained to
    prevent, mitigate, or respond to criminal terrorist acts, which are
    acts that significantly disrupt the conduct of government or of the
    general civilian population of the state or the United States and
    that manifest an extreme indifference to human life, the public
    disclosure of which would have a substantial likelihood of
    threatening public safety" .420(1)
    12. "Those portions of records containing specific and unique
    vulnerability assessments or specific and unique emergency and
    escape response plans at a city, county, or state adult or juvenile
    correctional facility, or secure facility for persons civilly confined
    ... the public disclosure of which would have a substantial
    likelihood of threatening the security of a city, county, or state
    adult or juvenile correctional facility, secure facility for persons
    civilly confined ... or any individual's safety" .420(2)
    13. "Commercial fishing catch data from logbooks required to be
    provided to the department of fish and wildlife under RCW
    77.12. 04 7, when the data identifies specific catch location, timing,
    or methodology and the release of which would result in unfair
    competitive disadvantage to the commercial fisher providing the
    catch data" .4 30( 1)
    14. "[L]ocation data that could compromise the viability of a specific
    fish or wildlife population, and where at least one of the following
    criteria are met: (i) The species has a known commercial or black
    market value; (ii) There is a history of malicious take of that
    species and the species behavior or ecology renders it especially
    vulnerable; (iii) There is a known demand to visit, take, or disturb
    the species; or (iv) The species has an extremely limited
    distribution and concentration" .430(2)(c)
    b. Conditional-Record Exemptions (certain types of records exempted
    insofar as identified privacy/governmental interests are implicated)
    1. "Records filed with the utilities and transportation commission or
    attorney general under RCW 80.04.095 that [would result in
    43
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    private loss, including an unfair competitive disadvantage, if
    disclosed]" .330(1)
    c. Conditional-Hybrid Exemptions (both records and information exempted
    insofar as identified privacy/governmental interests are implicated)
    1. "Specific intelligence information and specific investigative
    records compiled by investigative, law enforcement, and penology
    agencies, and state agencies vested with the responsibility to
    discipline members of any profession, the nondisclosure of which
    is essential to effective law enforcement or for the protection of
    any person's right to privacy" .240(1)
    III.   AMBIGUOUS EXEMPTIONS (arguably categorical or conditional)
    1. "Records, maps, or other information identifying the location of
    archaeological sites in order to avoid the looting or depredation of
    such sites" .300(1)
    2. "Records, maps, and other information, acquired during watershed
    analysis ... under RCW 76.09.370, that identify the location of
    archaeological sites, historic sites, artifacts, or the sites of
    traditional religious, ceremonial, or social uses and activities of
    affected Indian tribes, are exempt from disclosure under this
    chapter in order to prevent the looting or depredation of such
    sites" .300(2)
    3. "Information compiled by school districts or schools in the
    development of their comprehensive safe school plans under
    RCW 28A.320.125, to the extent that they identify specific
    vulnerabilities of school districts and each individual school"
    .420(3)
    4. "Information regarding the infrastructure and security of computer
    and telecommunications networks, consisting of security
    passwords, security access codes and programs, access codes for
    secure software applications, security and service recovery plans,
    security risk assessments, and security test results to the extent
    that they identify specific system vulnerabilities" .420(4)
    44
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Housing Authority, No. 87656-8
    WE CONCUR:
    --.      -~--~·--:.             ·-
    45
    Resident Action Council v. Seattle Hous. Auth.
    No. 87656-8
    MADSEN, C.J. (concurring)-Although I concur in the result reached by the
    majority, I write separately to state my concern that the majority's opinion exceeds the
    scope of the questions before the court. This court was asked to determine if the trial
    court erred when it ordered the Seattle Housing Authority (SHA) to produce grievance
    hearing decisions pursuant to the Public Records Act (PRA), chapter 42.56 RCW,
    ordered SHA to produce responsive records in electronic format and to establish
    necessary policies to ensure PRA compliance, and awarded statutory damages. To the
    extent that the majority upholds the trial court's actions and awards attorney fees on
    appeal, I concur.
    The majority, however, goes far beyond reviewing the trial court's actions. For
    example, the majority, without briefing or a trial court ruling subject to review, outlines
    and charts the procedures an agency should follow in responding to public records
    requests. The majority also takes it upon itself to classify various provisions of the PRA
    that are unrelated to the issues presented in this case. It appears that the majority is
    attempting to advise SHA in the development of the very policies and procedures
    required under the injunction. While this guidance may be helpful, it is unnecessary to
    the disposition of this case and is improper.
    No. 87656-8
    Madsen, C.J., concurring
    Further, several of the majority's PRA classifications are questionable. For
    instance, the majority classifies RCW 42.56.230(4)(a) as a categorical-information
    exemption. RCW 42.56.230(4)(a) exempts information required of any taxpayer if
    disclosure would be prohibited by RCW 84.08.210, among other statutes. However,
    RCW 84.08.210 has language mirroring RCW 42.56.230(4)(b), which the majority
    classifies as conditiona1. 1 Thus, it is unclear why subsection (a) should be classified as a
    categorical exemption while subsection (b) is classified as conditional when both
    provisions require a case-by-case determination. RCW 42.56.230(4)(a) may be more
    appropriately classified as a conditional exemption than a categorical exemption.
    Additionally, the majority determines that "business plans" under RCW 42.56.270(5) are
    information, yet classifies "farm plans" under RCW 42.56.270(17) as records. 2 No
    analysis is provided for this distinction, nor is analysis provided for several other
    classifications that are equally questionable.
    1
    RCW 84.08.210 states that "(2) [t]ax information is confidential and privileged ... except as
    authorized by this section" and defines tax information as "(1) ... confidential income data and
    proprietary business information ... the disclosure of which would be either highly offensive to
    a reasonable person and not a legitimate concern to the public or would result in an unfair
    competitive disadvantage to the taxpayer." Similarly, RCW 42.56.230(4) exempts
    "[i]nformation required of any taxpayer" if the disclosure would "(b) violate the taxpayer's right
    to privacy or result in unfair competitive disadvantage to the taxpayer."
    2
    RCW 42.56.270 exempts certain "financial, commercial, and proprietary information" from
    disclosure, and includes "(5) [f]inancial information, business plans, examination reports, and
    any information produced or obtained in evaluating or examining a business and industrial
    development corporation organized or seeking certification under chapter 31.24 RCW" and
    "(17)(a) [f]arm plans developed by conservation districts, unless permission to release the farm
    plan is granted by the landowner or operator who requested the plan, or the farm plan is used for
    the application or issuance of a permit" and also states that "(b) [±]arm plans developed under
    chapter 90.48 RCW and not under the federal clean water act, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251 et seq., are
    subject to RCW 42.56.610 and 90.64.190."
    2
    No. 87656-8
    Madsen, C.J., concurring
    Unwisely, the majority answers questions that the court was not asked to decide
    and on which no briefing was provided. Our review was limited to the public disclosure
    of SHA grievance hearing decisions and whether the trial court abused its discretion in
    ordering the injunctions and damages. In so far as the majority addressed matters outside
    of this determination, I disagree.
    3
    No. 87656-8
    4