FILED

Court of Appeals
Division Ill
State of Washington
2/18/2025 9 :33 AM

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION THREE

APPELLATE COURT CASE NUMBER #405044

JOSE RODRIGUEZ JR.,

Appellant,

v.

CITY OF WALLA WALLA POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Respondent.

RESPONDENT'S BRIEF

June L. Riley, WSBA # 29198

Assistant City Attorney for City of Walla Walla
15 N. 3rd Avenue
Walla Walla, WA 99362
509-522-2843
[email protected]
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

COUNTER TO ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 2

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES 3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 3

PROCEDURAL SUMMARY 7

STANDARD OF REVIEW ................................................... 8

ARGUMENT .......................................................................... 9

THE RULING ON RESPONDENT'S SUMMARY 9

JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD BE UPHELD

I. RESPONDENT PROVIDED RESPONSNE 9

PORTIONS OF THE RECORD AND THE
EXEMPTIONS UNDER RCW 42.56.240(1)(2)
WERE CORRECTLY APPLIED

A. Respondent Complied with the PRA 9

i. The Appellant Received Responsive Records

from the Homicide Report. ........................................ 10

ii. RCW 42.56.240(1) Provides an Exemption

For Effective Law Enforcement ....................................... 11

iii. The Homicide Which is the Subject of the

Requested Report is Unsolved ....................................... 12
B. The Lives of Persons Involved in the Investigation
are at Risk WWPD Witnesses in Other Matters Have
Been Murdered By 8 th Street Wicked Gangsters.
RCW 42.56.240(2) Provides for an Exemption
if Lives are in Danger ................................................... 15

II APPELLANT FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT ANY

ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF HIS CLAIM EXISTS 21

III APPELLANT WAS PROVIDED RESPONSIVE

DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO HIS REQUEST
IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRA ............................ 25

IV. ALL PROCEDURES REQUIRED BY THE

PUBLIC RECORDS ACT WERE FOLLOWED
BY THE RESPONDENT ........................................ 26

A- Agency must provide non-exempt public records,

RCW 4256.070(1) within five (5) days by providing the
record, a link to the record, a time estimate of when the
record will be sent, a request for clarification or a denial.
RCW 42.56.520(1). ............................................................... 26

A l - Undisputed that Respondent Replied Within One (1) Day... 26.

A2- Undisputed that Respondent Provided a Summary of the

Responsive record and Asked for Clarification
within One (1) Day ................................................... 27

A3- Undisputed that Respondent Timely Provided the First

Set of Responsive Records and a Reasonable Estimate
of Additional Time Required. ........................................ 27

A4- Undisputed Respondent Timely Provided the Second

Installment of Responsive Records. ............................ 28

-11-
B- The Agency Search for Records Must be Objectively
Reasonable, WAC 44-14-04003(10). ............................ 28

B1- Undisputed that Respondent Conducted an

Objectively Reasonable Search. ....................................... 28

C- Respondent Complied by Notifying Appellant of any

Additionally discovered Responsive Documents,
WAC 44-14-04003(13)........................................................ 30

Cl- An Additional Page of the Record was Located

and Provided to Appellant in Compliance
with the PRA. ............................................................... 30

D- Provide an exemption/redaction log and written

explanation for any denials. ....................................... 30

D1- Undisputed Respondent Provided the Exemption /

Redaction Log as Required by RCW 42.56.210(3). 30

D2- Undisputed Evidence Shows Respondent Provided

the Pages Listed in the Log. ....................................... 31

E- Agency must correctly apply any exemptions or

redactions. RCW 42.56.240(1) & (2). ............................ 32

El- Undisputed Respondent Provided All Responsive,

Non-Exempt, Records Which Appellant Requested. 32

E2- The Identifiable Records Requested by Appellant

Were the Records Mentioning or Related to
His Name and Monikers. ...................................................32

E3- Clarification was not needed; Appellant's request was clear. 34

E4- An Agency Should Not Provide Non-Responsive Records. 34

-lll-
F. Agency Must Provide review of any Denial of Inspection.
RCW 42.56.520(4). ................................................... 35

F l- Undisputed that Respondent Complied with Request

for Review. .............................................................. 35

V. DENIAL OF APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION WAS CORRECT. 36

VI. DENIAL OF APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR

SHOW CAUSE WAS CORRECT. ............................ 39

CONCLUSION 41

-IV-
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

FEDERAL CASES

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317,322,

106 S.Ct. 2548,2552,91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). 24

WASHINGTON STATE CASES

Lamon v. McDonnell Douglass Corporation,

91 Wash.2d 345,588 P.2d 1346 (1979). 8

Mountain Park Homeowners Ass'n, 125 Wash.2d 337,

883 P.2d 1383 (1994). 9

Guardado v. Taylor, 17 Wn.App.2d 676,

490 P3d 274 (2021). 9,25

Impecoven v. Dept. ofRevenue, 120 Wn.2d 357,

842 P.2d 460 (1992). 9,25

Sargent v. Seattle Police Department,

179 Wash.2d 376 (2013). 10,11,12,13

Newman v. King County, 133 Wash.2d 565,

947 P.2d 712, (1977) 10,12,17, 18,
20,34

Cowles Publishing Company v. Spokane

Police Department,
City ofSpokane, 139 Wash.2d 472,
987 P.2d 620 (1999). 10,14,15,16

In the Matter ofthe Personal Restraint of

Jose Manuel Quintero, Washington State
Court of Appeals,
Division III,No. 38585-0-III 18,21

-v-
LaPlante v. State, 85 Wash. 2d 154,158,
531 P.2d 299,301-02 (1975). 22

Young v. Key Pharms., Inc., 112 Wash. 2d 216,

770 P.2d 182,187-88 (1989). 23,24

Neighborhood Alliance v. Spokane County,

172 Wash.2d 702,261 P.3d 119 (2011). 29

Forbes v. City of Gold Bar, 171 Wash.App. 857,

288 P.3d 384 (2012). 29

Bonamy v. City ofSeattle, 92 Wn.App 403,

960 P2d 447 (1998). 33

Kilduffv. San Juan Cnty., 194 Wash. 2d 859,

453 P.3d 719,723 (2019). 35

Washington Election Integrity Coalition

United v. Schumacher, 28 Wash.App.2d 176,
537 P.3d 1058 (2023). 36

Perry v. Hamilton, 51 Wash.App. 936,

756 P.2d 150 (1988). 37

Wagner Dev., Inc. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of

Maryland, 95 Wash.App. 896,977 P.2d 639 (1999). 37

Wilcox v. Lexington Eye Inst., 130 Wash. App. 234,

122 P.3d 729, 732 (2005). 37

STATUTES

RCW 42.56.240(1)(2) 11,32

RCW 42.56.240(1) 11,23

RCW 42.56.240(2) 15,23

-Vl-
RCW42.56.070(1) 26

RCW 42.56.520(1) 26,27

RCW 42.56.520(1)(d) 27

RCW 42.56.520(1) & (2) 28

RCW 42.56.210(3) 30,31

RCW 42.56.520(4) 30,35,36

RCW 42.56.080(1) 32

RCW 42.56.505(1) 39

RCW 42.56.505(6) 40

WAC 44-14-04003(10) 28

WAC 44-14-04003(13) 30

WAC 44-14-04003 34

WASHINGTON STATE COURT RULES

Superior Court Civil Rule, CR 59 37

-vu-
 INTRODUCTION:

Among other issues, this appeal presents a unique question about

what happens under exemptions in the PRA when a case is referred to

prosecution but dismissed with the following factors in existence:

1- The case remains open with a an unidentified murder suspect.

2- The investigation is open and active with Detectives assigned to

investigate the unsolved murder.

3- The requested homicide report contains information that if

disclosed would hinder the ability oflaw enforcement to investigate

and solve an open murder investigation.

4- The requested homicide report contains information that would

subject the persons mentioned in the report to serious threats from the

18 th Street Wicked Gangsters, the gang who committed the murder

and a gang that has murdered three other individuals believed to have

assisted police.

This appeal results from the granting of a summary judgment motion

brought by Respondent. CP 442-443. Appellant made a public records

request for all records mentioning or related to his name or monikers held by

the Walla Walla Police Department. CP 5, 13, 77. Appellant was provided

-1-
all responsive records that were not exempt. CP 25, 27, 77-80. Appellant

objected to the exemption of portions of a record regarding a gang related

homicide which was and is still open and actively under investigation under

Walla Walla Police Department Report number 2014-19407. CP 29, 81-88.

Charges had been filed against one suspect, but later dismissed because the

investigation was not complete and a murder suspect remains unidentified.

CP 81-86.

Appellant was provided seven pages from that homicide investigation

which were responsive and deemed not completely exempt. CP 25, 15, 17.

Appellant believed that the entire investigative report should have been

provided. CP 1-10. Appellant filed suit. CP 1-10. Respondent timely

answered and then brought a summary judgment motion which was granted.

CP 34-36, 442-443. This appeal results.

COUNTER TO ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

1. The granting of Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgement was

correct.

2. The denial of Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration was correct.

3. The denial of Appellant's Motion for Show Cause was correct.

4. The denial of attorney fees and costs to Appellant was correct.

-2-
 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

1. Was granting Respondent's Summary Judgement motion correct when all

evidence showed Respondent complied with the PRA (Public Records Act)?

2. Was denial of Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration appropriate when

Appellant failed to provide any grounds for relief pursuant to CR 59.

3. Was denial of Appellant's Motion for Show Cause appropriate, when

Summary Judgement had already been granted and the motion was brought

past the one year limit?

STATEMENT OF THE CASE:

In 2014 a gang murder by two members of the 18th Street Wicked

Gangsters, occurred in Walla Walla, Washington. CP 81-88. Detectives in

the Walla Walla Police Department (WWPD), are still investigating the

homicide. CP 81-88. The Walla Walla Police Department case number is

2014-19407. CP 81-88.

In July of2022, detectives believed that probable cause existed to file

charges against one gang member suspected of the murder. CP 81-85.

Charges were filed by the Walla Walla County Prosecuting Attorney Office

under case number 22-1-00224-36 against Clemente Garcia a member of the

18th Street Wicked Gangsters. CP 82. During the pre-trial discovery phase,

-3-
the case was dismissed without prejudice as it became necessary to continue

the investigation and obtain additional evidence. CP 81-85. Detectives

needed further investigation into an unidentified accomplice who was with

Clemente Garcia when the murder took place. CP 81-88.

The investigation is still open and ongoing. CP 81-88. Detective

Marlon Calton is assigned to the open investigation, with Detective Saul

Reyna assisting. CP 81-88. Time and resources of the Walla Walla Police

Department are being used to continue the investigation into this 18th Street

Wicked Gangsters homicide. CP 81-85.

On September 20, 2022 the Walla Walla Police Department,

(WWPD), Respondent received a public records request from Jose Luis

Rodriguez, Appellant. CP 77-80. The request asked for:

"All police records and documents including incident

reports, case reports, interviews, notes, or any other
information documented in the Walla Walla police
departments records system mentioning or related to
myself, Jose Luis Rodriguez Jr. (aka Jose Rodriguez,
Jose Luis Rodriguez, Luis Rodriguez, Jose Rodriguez
J r., L i l' R o b , L i t t l e R o b ) D O B :
06/28/1990Address:117NE 1 l th Ave(l 17 NorthEast
11th Avenue), Milton Freewater, Oregon 97862 from
2004 to present." (sic).

CP 13, 77.

Estella Perez, WWPD records clerk for the Walla Walla Police

-4-
Department,searched all WWPD records for the names Appellant provided.

CP 77-80. Appellant was provided several documents mentioning his name

or relating to him, as he requested. CP 5-6, 15, 17, 21-23, 77-80. Report

number 2014-19407 is voluminous and the WWPD records department

timely notified Appellant that they would need additional time to search that

report. CP 17, 77-80. In regards to report number 2014-19407, Appellant

was provided the responsive pages which mentioned his name or were

related to him as he requested. CP 5-6,15,17,21-23,77-80; the balance of

the report (in addition to not being responsive to Appellant's request) was and

is exempt because the investigation is still active, open and ongoing, as

detailed in the Declarations ofDetectives Marlon Calton and Saul Reyna. CP

81-88. Appellant was not involved in the homicide and was only an "MIR"

(mentioned in report) as having previously dated a potential witness and

therefore was only mentioned in or related to within seven pages. CP 21-23.

On September 21,2022 Estella Perez sent an email to Appellant with

the initial results of the search of all WWPD records which were responsive.

CP 5-6, 15, 17, 77-80 The response included a Global Subject Activity

Report (one page) and four Incident Reports (two pages) CP 5-6,15,17,77-

80.

-5-
 In the email of September 21, 2022, Estella Perez stated "If you do

not wish to receive copies of the records, please advise." CP 15. Appellant

advised that he did want to receive copies of the records. CP 15, 77-80.

Estella Perez estimated that the rest of the records would be provided by

October 31, 2022. CP 15, 77-80.

On October 17, 2022, Estella Perez sent an email to Appellant with

four attachments of records, explaining that the records from report 2014-

19407 would take longer to process since that report was 450 pages. CP 77-

80. A projected completion date of November 18, 2022 was provided. CP

17, 77-80.

On November 18, 2022 Estella Perez sent an email to Appellant

stating that more time was needed to process the records and the response

date was extended to December 2, 2022. Appellant agreed. CP 19, 77-80.

On November 30, 2022 Estella Perez sent an email to Appellant

attaching copies of the responsive records and the redaction/ exemption log.

CP 21-25, 27, 77-80. The email stated that the balance ofthe homicide report

#2014-19407 was exempt based upon RCW 42. 56.240(2) and that the request

was considered closed. CP 21-25.

On November 30, 2022 Appellant sent an email to WWPD records

-6-
requesting a review of the exemption. CP 29, 77-80. On December 2, 2022

an email response was sent to Appellant stating that his request was

forwarded to the City Attorney office for review with an estimate of review

completion of January 6, 2023. CP 31, 77-80.

On January 6, 2023 an email was sent to Appellant indicating that a

review was conducted and the determination made that the redactions and

exemptions were correctly applied. CP 33, 77-80.

Plaintiff filed a Summons and Complaint on October 13, 2023 for

alleged violations of the Public Records Act. CP 1-10.

On November 22, 2023, Estella Perez while conducting work on a

different public records request found another page that was overlooked

previously and was responsive to Appellant's request. CP 77-80. Estella

Perez immediately sent the page out to Appellant in compliance with the

PRA. CP 211.

PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

Appellant filed a summons and complaint on October 13, 2023. CP

1-10. Respondent timely answered. CP 34-36. Respondent filed a motion for

summary judgment which was stricken by Respondent. CP 64. Respondent

filed a new motion for summary judgment to which Appellant filed an

-7-
opposition. CP 65-88.

Appellant filed a motion to amend the complaint to be heard just

before the hearing on the summary judgment motion. CP 89-104.

Respondent filed an opposition to the motion to file amended complaint. CP

202-206. The Motion to File the Amended Complaint was continued to the

same date as the Summary Judgment motion. CP 206. The Respondent's

summary judgment motion was granted. CP 442-444. Appellant filed a

Motion for Reconsideration of the ruling on the Summary Judgment motion

and a Motion for a Show Cause Hearing. CP 230-250. Respondent filed

oppositions to these motions. CP 423-434.

Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment was granted. CP 442-

444. Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration and his Motion for Show Cause

Hearing were denied. CP 439-441. This appeal follows.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The de novo standard of review is used by an appellate court when

reviewing all trial court rulings made in conjunction with a summary

judgment motion. This standard ofreview is consistent with the requirement

that evidence and inferences are viewed in favor of the nonmoving party,

Lamon v. McDonnell Douglass Corporation, 91 Wash.2d 345,349,588 P.2d

-8-
1346 (1979), and the standard of review is consistent with the requirement

that the appellate court conduct the same inquiry as the trial court. Mountain

Park Homeowners Ass'n, 125 Wash.2d 337, 341, 883 P.2d 1383 (1994).

ARGUMENT

THE RULING ON RESPONDENT'S SUMMARY JUDGMENT

MOTION SHOULD BE UPHELD.

Summary Judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine material

issues of fact, even if parties take opposing positions on the dispositive legal

issues. Guardado v. Taylor, 17 Wn.App.2d 676,686, 490 P3d 274 (2021);

see also Impecoven v. Dept. ofRevenue, 120 Wn.2d 357, 365, 842 P.2d 460

(1992). Such is the case in this matter. All evidence presented to the trial

court showed that the Walla Walla Police Department (WWPD),

(Respondent) followed all procedures of the PRA and properly applied the

exemptions. CP 65-88.

I. RESPONDENT PROVIDED RESPONSIVE PORTIONS OF THE

RECORD AND THE EXEMPTIONS UNDER RCW 42.56.240(1)(2)

WERE CORRECTLY APPLIED

A. Respondent Complied with the PRA

-9-
 Respondent has complied with the PRA as well as with the salient

case law set forth in Sargent v. Seattle Police Department, 179 Wash.2d 376

(2013), Newman v. King County, 133 Wash.2d 565,947 P.2d 712, (1977)

and Cowles Publishing Company v. Spokane Police Department, City of

Spokane, 139 Wash.2d 472,987 P.2d 620 (1999).

Seven pages of the homicide report,were responsive to Appellant's

request and were provided to Appellant. Respondent provided detailed

declarations from detectives supporting the valid exemption ofthe rest ofthe

homicide report,which was also non- responsive to Appellant's request.

On September 20,2022,Appellant requested the following:

"All police records and documents including incident

reports,case reports, interviews, notes,or any other
information documented in the Walla Walla police
departments records system mentioning or related to
myself,Jose Luis Rodriguez Jr. (aka Jose Rodriguez,
Jose Luis Rodriguez,Luis Rodriguez,Jose Rodriguez
J r . , L i l ' R o b , L i t t l e R o b ) D OB:
06/28/1990Address:l 17 NE 11th Ave(l 17 North East
11th Avenue),Milton Freewater,Oregon 97862 from
2004 to present." (sic).

CP 5-6,15,17, 21-23, 77-80

i. The Appellant Received Responsive Records from the Homicide

Report..

Appellant was provided the portion ofthe homicide report which was

-10-
responsive to his request. CP 5-6, 15, 17, 21-23, 77-80. The balance of the

homicide report is not responsive to Appellant's request and is also exempt.

CP 5-6, 15, 17, 21-23, 77-80. Since seven pages were provided, Appellant

cannot claim that the homicide report was categorically exempted. The seven

pages provided were the pages that were responsive to Appellants request.

ii. RCW 42.56.240(1) Provides an Exemption for Effective Law

Enforcement

In Sargent v. Seattle Police Department, 179 Wash.,2d 376 (2013),

the court held that the effective law enforcement exemption of the PRA does

not apply to categorically exempt investigative records once the department

has concluded its investigation and referred the case to the prosecutor.

In this matter, Appellant received seven (7) pages of the homicide

report, thus the Respondent did not categorically exempt the entire homicide

report. CP 5-6, 15, 17, 21-23, 77-80.

The portion of the homicide report that was exempt fits squarely

within the effective law enforcement exemption of RCW 42.56.240(1 ), as

explained in the declarations of Detectives Marlon Calton and Saul Reyna.

CP 81-88.

-11-
iii The Portion of the Homicide Report Which was not Provided is

Exempt.

As to the portion of the homicide report which is exempt, Sargent is

distinguishable because the suspect was known, found arrested and the

investigative portion of the case was closed. Thus, in Sargent, either law

enforcement or court would be able to determine what documents were

exempt and what documents were not. The Sargent court explained that this

was a major consideration in their finding. The court stated:

Additionally,neither of the policies motivating

the court's decision in Newman is present in this case.
Unlike in Newman where there was an unidentified
murderer on the loose, here Sargent had been identified
and taken into custody, the case was referred to the
prosecutor,and the prosecutor determined that there was not
enough evidence to file charges. These actions signaled that
the case was solved and the SPD would no longer have
trouble segregating sensitive from nonsensitive information.
Additionally, a court would be in as good a position as law
enforcement to judge whether nondisclosure was essential.
(Emphasis added).
At page 389

In Newman v. King County, 133 Wash.2d 565,947 P.2d 712, (1977)

a journalist brought an action for violation of the PDA for refusal of a county

to release an open murder investigation file. The court held that the

categorical exemption applied because the investigation was still open. Id at

-12-
576. The court held that a determination of what is sensitive information

should wait until a case is solved, because even law enforcement would have

a difficult time determining which portions of a record might hinder the

investigation ifreleased. This is precisely the situation in this case. The court

stated:

The ongoing nature of the investigation naturally provides

no basis to decide what is important. Requiring a law
enforcement agency to segregate documents before
a case is solved could result in the disclosure of
sensitive information. The determination of sensitive
or nonsensitive documents often cannot be made until
the case has been solved. This exemption allows the
law enforcement agency, not the courts, to
determine what information, if any, is essential to solve
a case. (Emphasis Added).

At page575.

Accordingly, the determination by Detective Calton and Reyna (CP

81-88) that the balance ofthe homicide report (which is also non-responsive)

should not be disclosed is the determining factor in this unsolved homicide.

The Sargent case agreed with Newman that when an unidentified

murder suspect is on the loose, a categorical exemption may be appropriate.

The Newman case makes clear that when a case is unsolved and a suspect is

unidentified and on the loose, the law enforcement should not have to parse

out the documents, but if they must, then law enforcement are in the best

-13-
position to determine what investigative documents are exempt under the law

enforcement exemption.

In Cowles Publishing Company v. Spokane Police Department, City

ofSpokane, 139 Wash.2d 472, 987 P.2d 620 (1999), the court cited Newman

and re-stated the basis for the holding:

Although the decision includes language to the effect that any

"open" police investigative file categorically falls
within the statutory exemption for "effective law
enforcement," a close reading of the case demonstrates
that we were reluctant to have the courts secondguess
law enforcement agencies regarding release of
sensitive information in unsolved cases:

Thus, in Newman, we were concerned both with the difficulty

police would have segregating information in unsolved
cases, and with the propriety of charging courts with
responsibility of determining whether nondisclosure
was critical to solving the case - a task which we
felt was better left to the professional judgment of the
police.

At page 477.

The Cowles court held that because the case was solved, the police

investigative file was not categorically exempt. The court stated:

In such circumstances, the risk of inadvertently disclosing

sensitive information that might impede apprehension of
the perpetrator no longer exists.

At page 478.

-14-
 Unlike the Sargent case, this homicide remains unsolved. To

disclose the entire homicide report would impede the ability to apprehend the

member of the 18th Street Wicked Gangsters who committed the murder and

would endanger the lives of people mentioned in the report. CP 81-88.

Consistent with Newman, law enforcement provided detailed

declarations from the Detectives involved in the homicide investigation to

explain why the investigation was open and ongoing, even though it had been

referred to the prosecutor. CP 81-88. An unidentified murder suspect, likely

a member of the 18th Street Wicked Gangsters is still on the loose. CP 81-88.

Consistent with the holding in Cowles, Detectives Calton and Reyna

are in the best position to determine what portion, if any, of the record

requested can be disclosed without impeding the investigation to find the

other member of the 18th Street Wicked Gangsters who murdered an innocent

person. CP 81-88.

B. The Lives of Persons Involved in the Investigation are at Risk.

WWPD Witnesses in Other Matters Have Been Murdered By 18th

Street Wicked Gangsters.

RCW 42.56.240(2) Provides for an Exemption if Lives are in Danger.

Part of the decision to exempt the remainder of the report was based

- 15-
upon the fact that the disclosure of the exempt portions of the report would

place witnesses in danger of gang retaliation, including murder and would

compromise the integrity of the homicide investigation. CP 77-88.

The investigation is ongoing. CP 77-88. The witnesses listed,

mentioned and discussed in the report will have their lives endangered iftheir

identities are revealed. CP 77-88. The threat to the ability oflaw enforcement

to effectively conclude their investigation is serious. CP 81-88. The threat

to the lives of the persons mentioned in the report as having been present

during the homicide or of having information afterward is even more serious

and very real. CP 81-88.

Detectives Calton and Reyna, who are still investigating this open

case, have determined that the exempt portions of this report should not be

disclosed based upon the damage such disclosure would cause to the ongoing

investigation and the life threatening danger to the witnesses involved. CP

81-88.

The court in Sargent v. Seattle Police Dep 't, 179 Wash. 2d 376,

394--95, 314 P.3d 1093, 1101 (2013) explained the exemptions under RCW

42.56.240(1) & (2).

The PRA protects witness identities in two provisions.

The effective law enforcement exemption in RCW

-16-
 42.56.240(1) can pr ev ent disclosure due to the
potential chilling effect on other witnesses who may
be discouraged from coming forward if they know
that their identity will be disclosed . Additionally,
RCW 42.56.240(2) prov ides separate protection by
exempting witness identities where "disclosure would
endanger any person's life, physical safety, or
property " or where the witness requests
nondisclosure.

Detectives Calton and Reyna provided detailed declarations with

ample evidence that the investigation is still open and ongoing with resources

assigned to the investigation. CP 81-88. The fact that the case was initially

referred to the prosecutor and then dismissed does not change the fact that

there is an unidentified murderer on the loose and that the case is still open.

CP 81 -88.

The identity ofthe witnesses must not be disclosed in order to protect

the lives of these witnesses . CP 81-88. To disclose the witnesses identity

would not only place the witnesses lives in danger, but also place the

successful investigation and prosecution of the matter at risk. CP 81-88.

Consistent with Newman (Supra) Detective Calton and Detective

Reyna are in the best position to determine how detrimental the disclosure of

the homicide r eport would be to the ongoing investigation and prosecution.

CP 81-88. Witnesses can be identified not just by th eir names, but also by the

-17-
context in which they are discussed in the report, thus the investigating

detectives are in the position of knowing what material can be disclosed and

what material is exempt, which as stated in Newman (Supra) is "a task which

we felt was better left to the professional judgment of the police." Id. At page

477.

The 1 8th Street Wicked Gangsters have engaged in several other

homicides in Walla Walla in the past several years. CP 8 1 -88. A recent

appellate case in Division III, involves some of these same individuals who

are members of the 1 8th Street Wicked Gangsters, involved in the requested

homicide report. CP 8 1-88.

In the Matter of the Personal Restraint of Jose Manuel Quintero,

Washington State Court of Appeals, Division III, No. 3858 5-0-III, Jose

Manuel Quintero a member of the 1 8th Street "Wicked Gangsters" in Walla

Walla, appealed his conviction for the murder of Janette Rojas and John

Cano.

Ms. Rojas was murdered by a member of the 1 8th Street "Wicked

Gangsters" because she assisted the Walla Walla Police Department with

controlled buys from Charlie Lozano, a member of 1 8th Street, "Wicked

Gangsters". Mr Lozano was charged with delivery of methamphetamine

- 1 8-
based on Ms. Rojas controlled buys. Charlie Lozano pied guilty. He

eventually learned Ms. Rojas' identity. Id, at pages 2-3.

The night before Charlie Lozano's was to leave for prison,a fellow

1 8th Street Wicked Gangster member, Jose Manuel Quintero,murdered Ms.

Rojas and Mr. Cano (her boyfriend) as they sat on their front porch. Ms.

Rojas was shot 1 1 times,Mr. Cano was shot 5 times,both died. Id,

A witness at the trial of Jose Quintero testified that Jose Quintero

admitted to him that he and Jose Lozano, the brother of Charlie Lozano (all

of whom are 1 8th Street "Wicked Gangsters" members) were the people who

killed Ms. Rojas and Mr. Cano and that the reason for the murders is that Ms.

Rojas assisted law enforcement in the case against Charlie Lozano. Id. at

page 8-9.

An additional witness at trial testified that Mr. Quintero told him that

he killed Ms. Rojas because she was a "snitch" and killing snitches is "[j]ust

part of the gang code". Id.. at page 12. Charlie Lozano is involved in and

believed to be a suspect in the homicide report requested by Appellant. CP

81 -88.

Another murder by 1 8th Street Wicked Gangster members took place

at the Green Lantern Tavern. CP 86-88. A witness who had assisted WWPD

-1 9-
and his friend were leaving the Green Lantern Tavern and were assaulted by

18 th Street Wicked Gangster gang members. The person who had assisted the

WWPD was severely injured and his friend, an innocent party, was murdered

in the parking lot of the Green Lantern Tavern.

As stated in the Declaration of Marlon Calton CP 8 1-85 and

Declaration of Saul Reyna CP 86-88 which were attached to the

Respondent 's Summary Judgment motion, CP 81-88, there is no way to

effectively protect the identity ofthe witnesses and gang "fallouts" from harm

ifthe report is disclosed. CP 8 1-88. A witnesses identity can be determined

by the context of the report, not only from their name. CP 81-88.

The members of 18th Street "Wicked Gangsters" are more than

willing to engage in murder of people they believe have assisted the

Walla Walla Police Department. CP 81-88. The fact that there have been

three (3) other homicides by 18 th Street Wicked Gangsters makes clear that

the threat to the lives ofthe witnesses is real and justified the exemption. CP

81-88. The determination by the investigating officers as to what information

is exempt was the only evidence presented at the Summary Judgement

hearing . Appellant's affidavit was nothing more that a re-statement of the

allegations contained in his complaint. CP 4-10, 1 24-130.

-20-
 The same logic applies here as in Newman, (Supra). The

investigating detectives are in the best position to know whether the

exemption of the balance of the homicide report is necessary to protect

witnesses from 18 th Street Wicked Gangster retaliation. The court can clearly

see that gang retaliation from them has occurred in the past and is likely to

occur again if the report is not exempt. CP 81-88. and In the Matter of the

Personal Restraint ofJose Manuel Quintero, (Supra).

II. A P PELLANT FAILED TO EST AB LISH THAT ANY

ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF HIS CLAIM EXISTS:

Respondent was and is entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw. There

was no genuine issue of material fact. Once Respondent met its burden to

show that no genuine issue of fact existed, the burden shifted to Appellant

who was required, and failed, to provide proofof any essential element of his

alleged claim.

When a motion for summary judgment is supported

by evidentiary matter, the adverse party may not rest
on mere allegations in the pleadings but must set forth
specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
trial. W. G. Platts, Inc. v. Platts, 73 Wash.2d 434, 438
P.2d 867 {1968); Tait v. KING Broadcasting Co., 1
Wash.App. 250, 460 P.2d 307 {1969); McGough v.
Edmonds, 1 Wash.App. 164, 460 P.2d 302 {1969). If
no genuine issue of material fact exists it must then be
determined whether the moving party is entitled to

-21-
 judgment as a matter oflaw. CR 56(c).

LaPlante v. State, 85 Wash. 2d 154, 158, 531 P.2d 299,

301-02 (1975).

Once the moving party (Respondent) presented the detailed affidavits

ofEstella Perez, Detective Marlon Calton and Detective Saul Reyna (CP 77-

88), the burden then shifted to Appellant to provide evidence to show the

existence of an essential element of his claim, which he failed to do.

In a summary judgment motion, the moving party

bears the initial burden of showing the absence of an
issue of material fact. See LaPlante v. State, 85
Wash.2d 154, 158, 531 P.2d 299 (1975). If the
moving party is a defendant and meets this initial
showing, then the inquiry shifts to the party with the
burden of proof at trial, the plaintiff. If, at this point,
the plaintiff "fails to make a showing sufficient to
establish the existence of an element essential to that
party's case, and on which that party will bear the
burden of proof at trial," then the trial court should
grant the motion. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S.
317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265
(1986); see also T. W Elec. Serv. v. Pacific Elec.
Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626, 630--32 (9th
Cir.1987). In Celotex, the United States Supreme
Court explained this result: "In such a situation, there
can be 'no genuine issue as to any material fact,' since
a complete failure of proof concerning an essential
element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily
renders all other facts immaterial." 477 U.S. at
322-23, 106 S.Ct. at 2552-53.
In making this responsive showing, the nonmoving
party cannot rely on the allegations made in its

-22-
 pleadings. CR 56(e) states that the response, "by
affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must
set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine
issue for trial."

Young v. Key Pharms., Inc., 1 1 2 Wash. 2d 2 1 6, 225-26, 770

P.2d 1 82, 1 87-88 ( 1989).

Respondent provided ample evidence through declarations of

Detective Marlon Calton and Saul Reyna that the gang related homicide

investigation was open and being actively investigated, thus satisfying RCW

42.56.240(1 ). CP 8 1 -88. The Declaration of Marlon Calton sets forth

sufficient evidence that the gang related homicide investigation is still active,

open and ongoing. CP 8 1 -85. Detective Calton explains why the

investigation is still open, the fact that there are two suspects and although

one suspect was initially charged, a dismissal was necessary. CP 8 1 -85.

Detective Calton also explained in his declaration why additional

investigation is needed as there is still another unidentified suspect. CP 8 1 -

85.

The declarations ofDetectives Marlon Calton and Saul Reyna clearly

explain the necessity for keeping the exempt portions of the report from

release in order to protect the lives of people involved, thus satisfying RCW

42.56.240(2). CP 86-88.

-23-
 Ample detailed evidence was provided through Respondent's

Summary Judgment Motion to meet Respondent's burden that no genuine

issue of fact existed. CP 66-88. The burden then shifted to Appellant to

provide evidence, not merely a conclusory affidavit containing the allegations

in the complaint. CP 4-1 0.

Appellant's Declaration in opposition to the Motion for Summary

Judgment provided no evidence to "establish an essential element" as

required by Young, Supra, citing Celotex Corp. v. Catreet, 477 U.S. 3 1 7,

322, 1 06 S.Ct. 2538, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1 986). CP 1 24-1 3 0. The only

evidence presented to the trial court showed no genuine issue of fact; the

homicide is open and being actively investigated by law enforcement and the

lives of the persons mentioned in the homicide report will be in danger if

disclosed. There was no evidence to prove the contrary presented by

Appellant. CP 8 1 -88, 1 24- 130.

As stated in Young and Celotex, Supra, once Respondent met the

burden of showing there was no genuine issue of material fact, the burden

shifted to Appellant to provide proof of an essential element he must prove

at trial. Young, Supra, citing Celotex Corp. v. Catreet, 477 U.S. 3 1 7, 322,

1 06 S.Ct. 2538, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1 986). Appellant failed to provide

-24-
any such evidence or proof of an element of his claim. CP 124-130.

Appellant's "Declaration of Jose Rodriguez" attached to the Response to the

Motion for Summary Judgment was simply a restatement of the allegations

contained in Appellant's complaint. CP 4-10, 124-130. No evidence was

provided by Appellant to meet his burden.

Since Appellant did not and could not meet his burden in the trial

court, Summary Judgment was properly granted. This appeal fails.

III. APPELLANT WAS PROVIDED RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS

PURSUANT TO HIS REQUEST IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRA.

There was no genuine issue of material fact; the Appellant was

provided the responsive documents to his request which were not exempt. CP

5-6, 15, 17, 21-23, 77-80. Appellant was provided seven pages from the

homicide report which were the pages that "mentioned or related to his

name", just as he requested. CP 5-6,15, 17, 21-23, 77-80. The only evidence

provided to the trial court on summary judgment proved Appellant was

provided the non-exempt responsive pages of the record. CP 77-80, 81-85,

86-88. Appellant's desire to have the exempt portions of the record is not

evidence that the PRA was not followed. Nor is it the standard for denial or

overturning the granting of a summary judgment motion. ( See Guardado v.

-25-
Taylor, 1 7 Wn.App.2d 676,686, 490 P3d 274 (2021 ); see also Jmpecoven v.

Dept. ofRevenue, 1 20 Wn.2d 357, 365, 842 P.2d 460 ( 1 992) ). Appellant has

failed to provide any evidence that the PRA was not followed. This appeal

fails.

IV ALL PROCEDURES REQUIRED BY THE PUBLIC RECORDS

ACT WERE FOLLOWED BY THE RESPONDENT.

The PRA (Public Records Act) requires that an agency follow the

requirements which are set forth below. The Summary Judgment motion was

granted because there was no genuine issue of material fact. The WWPD

followed the procedures required by the PRA. Each requirement and

Respondent's complinace will be addressed.

A- PRA REQUIREMENT:

Agency must provide non-exempt public records, RCW42.56.070(1)

within five (5) days by providing the record, a link to the record, a time

estimate of when the record will be sent, a request for clarification or a

denial. RCW 42.56.520(1).

Al- COMPLIANCE BY RESPONDENT:

Undisputed that Respondent Replied Within One (1) Day.

Appellant's PRA request was received by WWPD on September 20,

-26-
2022. CP 5-6, 1 5, 1 7, 2 1 -23, 77-80. On September 2 1 , 2022 an email

response was sent to Appellant. CP 5-6, 1 5, 1 7, 2 1 -23, 77-80. Respondent's

replied to Appellant within five (5) business days of Appellant's request. CP

5-6, 77-80 There is no dispute that Respondent complied with RCW

42.56.520(1 ).

A2- COMPLIANCE BY RESPONDENT:

Undisputed that Respondent Provided a Summary of the Responsive

Record and Asked for Clarification within One (1) Day.

The response sent on September 2 1 , 2022 contained a list of the

potentially responsive records and requested clarification as to whether

Appellant wanted a copy of each responsive record. CP 5-6, 1 5, 1 7, 2 1 -23,

77-80. There is no dispute that Respondent requested clarification within

five (5) days and therefore complied with RCW 42.56.520(l )(d).

A3- COMPLIANCE BY RESPONDENT:

Undisputed that Respondent Timely Provided the First Set of

Responsive Records and a Reasonable Estimate of Additional Time

Required.

On October 1 7, 2022, the first set of responsive records was sent to

Appellant. CP 5-6, 1 5, 1 7, 2 1 -23, 77-80. This email also contained an

-27-
 estimate stating the search for responsive records in report 201 4- 1 9407

should be completed by November 1 8, 2022. CP 5-6, 1 5, 1 7, 2 1 -23, 77-80.

There is no dispute that Respondent complied with RCW 42.56.520(1 ) & (2).

A4-COMPLIANCE BY RESPONDENT:

Undisputed Respondent Timely Provided the Second Installment of

Responsive Records.

Respondent sent an email to Appellant on November 1 8, 2022

.,
indicating that more time was needed to process the remainder ofthe request

and indicated a responsive date of December 2, 2022. CP 5-6, 1 5, 1 7, 2 1 -23,

77-80.

Respondent complied with RCW 42.56.520(2) by informing

Appellant promptly that the WWPD needed additional time to process his

request. CP 5-6, 1 5, 1 7, 2 1 -23, 77-80.

B- PRA REQUIREMENT:

The Agency Search for Records Must be Objectively Reasonable.

WAC 44-14-04003(10).

Bl- COMPLIANCE BY RESPONDENT:

Undisputed that Respondent Conducted an Objectively Reasonable

Search.

-28-
 Respondent conducted a thorough search of all WWPD records using

the criteria provided in Plaintiff's request. CP 77-80.

The adequacy ofa search is judged by the standard ofreasonableness.

Neighborhood Alliance v. Spokane County, 1 72 Wash.2d 702, 26 1 P .3d 1 1 9

(201 1 ); Forbes v. City of Gold Bar, 1 71 Wash.App. 857, 288 P.3d 384

(201 2).

Appellant requested: "All police records and documents including

incident reports, case reports, interviews, notes, or any other information

documented in the Walla Wall a police departments records system

mentioning or related to myself, Jose Luis Rodriguez Jr. (aka Jose Rodriguez,

Jose Luis Rodriguez, Luis Rodriguez, Jose Rodriguez Jr., Lil' Rob, Little

Rob)". CP 5-6, 1 5, 1 7, 2 1 -23, 77-80

The search was conducted with each name provided by Appellant in

his request. All WWPD databases were searched with the criteria provided

by Appellant. CP 77-80. There is no other way the Respondent could have

searched the WWPD databases other than by using the names provided by

Appellant. CP 77-80. Since this is the only way a search could be done and

Respondent used the parameters for the search as provided by the Appellant,

the search was objectively reasonable. There is no dispute that Respondent

-29-
searched the records in an objectively reasonable manner in compliance with

Appellant's request and the PRA.

C- PRA REQUIREMENT :

Respondent Complied by Notifying Appellant of any Additionally

Discovered Responsive Documents. WAC 44-14-04003(13);

Cl- COMPLIANCE BY RESPONDENT:

An Additional Page of the Record was Located and Provided to

Appellant in Compliance with the PRA.

On November 22, 2023 Respondent located one additional responsive

record while searching on another PRA request. CP 77-80. The record was

immediately provided to Appellant by email. Id.

WAC 44- 14-04003( 1 3) states that if an agency becomes aware of the

existence ofresponsive records which were not provided, the agency should

notify the requestor in writing, providing a brief explanation and the non­

exempt record with any required log. This was done by Respondent. CP 5-6,

1 5, 1 7, 2 1 -23, 77-80. The undisputed evidence in the Summary Judgment

motion that Respondent fully complied with the PRA. This appeal fails.

D- PRA REQUIREMENT:

Provide an exemption/redaction log and written explanation for any

-30-
denials. RCW 42.56.210(3) and RCW 42.56.520(4).

Dl- COMPLIANCE BY RESPONDENT:

Undisputed Respondent Provided the Exemption/Redaction Log as

Required by RCW 42.56.210(3).

RCW 42.56.21 0(3) requires that a statement be included explaining

any exemptions. Appellant stated in his own Complaint that a log was

provided. CP 6. There was no dispute that Defendant provided an

exemption/redaction log. CP 6, 62, 77- 80.

D2- COMPLIANCE BY RESPONDENT:

Undisputed Evidence Shows Respondent Provided the Pages Listed in

the Log.

Appellant's claim that pages 24, 26 and 29 were not provided is

specious.

Respondent has explained that the responsive documents were

provided, CP 79. When a request is received, the documents are scanned as

a pdf file and therefore numbered according to the order in which they are

scanned. It is very similar to the fact that although the Clerk's Papers cited

here may have their own page number as an original page, they will have a

separate Clerk's Paper page number as a designation. Although this was

-3 1 -
made clear in the Respondent's Summary Judgment motion, CP 79,

Appellant insists on continuing to put forth a specious argument which is

completely unsupported by the facts or logic. This appeal fails.

E- PRA REQUIREMENT:

Agency must correctly apply any exemptions or redactions. RCW

42.56.240(1) & (2).

El- COMPLIANCE BY RESPONDENT:

Undisputed Respondent Provided All Responsive, Non-Exempt, Records

Which Appellant Requested.

On November 30, 2022, Defendant provided all responsive records

from report (2014-1 9407) which were not exempt. CP 5-6, 1 5, 1 7, 2 1 -23, 77-

80.

Records are determined to be responsive based on the request made.

The PRA requires that a request be made for identifiable records. RCW

42.56.080(1). A request for all or substantially all records of an agency is not

a valid request for identifiable records. Id.

E2- COMPLIANCE BY RESPONDENT:

The Identifiable Records Requested by Appellant Were the Records

Mentioning or Related to His Name and Monikers.

-32-
 An identifiable record is one that is existing at the time of the request

and which agency staff can reasonably locate. The act does not require

agencies to be mind readers and to guess what records are being requested.

Bonamy v. City of Seattle, 92 Wn.App 403, 4 1 0 960 P2d 447 ( 1998). it is

Appellant's responsibility to use language which will identify the records he

is seeking.

The Appellant's request was for "All police records and documents

including incident reports, case reports, interviews, notes, or any other

information documented in the Walla Walla police departments records

system... ". CP 1 3 , 32, 5 1 . This clause by itselfis not a request for identifiable

records.

The second part of the request modifies the first part limiting the

search to records "mentioning or related to myself, Jose Luis Rodriguez Jr.

(aka Jose Rodri guez, Jose Luis Rodriguez, Luis Rodriguez, Jose Rodriguez

Jr., Lil' Rob, Little Rob)". CP 1 3, 32, 5 1 . It is at this point that the request

contains identifiable records.

The request was clear because of the identifiers of "mentioning or

related to myself, Jose Luis Rodriguez Jr. (aka Jose Rodriguez, Jose Luis

Rodriguez, Luis Rodriguez, Jose Rodriguez Jr., Lil ' Rob, Little Rob)" in the

-33-
request. Otherwise the request was for all WWPD records. Accordingly, only

records mentioning or related to the names given were responsive. The

records requested were provided. . CP 5-6, 1 5, 1 7, 2 1 -23, 77-80.

E3- COMPLIANCE BY RESPONDENT:

Clarification was not needed; Appellant's request was clear.

The fact that the request was only for records with Appellant's name

and monikers is not in dispute. CP 1 3, 32, 5 1 . It would not have been

reasonable for Defendant to ask for clarification on an objectively clear

request. To do so would be antithetical to the intent of the PRA by delay of

the production of the records.

E4- COMPLIANCE BY RESPONDENT:

An Agency Should Not Provide Non-Responsive Records.

Respondent is required to take reasonable steps to narrow down the

number of records to only those that are responsive. An agency should not

"bury'' a requestor with non-responsive documents. WAC 44-1 4-04003,

Neighborhood Alliance v. Spokane County, 1 72 Wash.2d 702, 722, 26 1 p.3d

1 1 9 (201 1 ).

Respondent did not need to seek clarification of a clear request.

Appellant was provided the non-exempt portion of a record which was

-34-
responsive to his request. CP 1 3, 32, 5 1 .

F- PRA REQUIREMENT:

Agency Must Provide Review of any Denial of Inspection. RCW

42.56.520(4).

Fl- COMPLIANCE BY RESPONDENT:

Undisputed that Defendant Complied with Request for Review.

Appellant misinterprets the purposes of RCW 42.56.520(4). As set

forth in Kilduffv. San Juan Cnty., 1 94 Wash. 2d 859, 867, 453 P.3d 7 1 9, 723

(201 9), the court explained:

These include providing a written explanation when

a request is denied and establishing mechanisms for
prompt review of denials. RCW 42.56.520(4). Such
review must be completed by the end of the second
business day following the denial and constitutes final
agency action for the purposes ofjudicial review. Id.
This provision works in tandem with RCW 42.56.550,
which provides that a records requester may file suit
against an agency upon denial of a public records
request.

The purpose ofRCW 42.56.520(4) is to provide a deadline by which

a requestor can move forward with filing a lawsuit. It does not provide its

own cause of action. It does provide a point at which a potential plaintiff does

not have to wait for any further determinations and can move forward to seek

-35 -
judicial determination regarding a PRA request.

RCW 42.56.520(4) also provides for review ofa denial or exemption.

Respondent had complied with this requirement. CP 77-80

An email was sent to Plaintiff on December 2, 2022 explaining the

status of when an answer to Appellant's request for review was expected.

Review was conducted by the Walla Walla City Attorney and determination

made that the response, redactions and exemptions were correct. CP 5-6, 1 5,

1 7, 2 1 -23, 77-80. There was no issue of material fact; Respondent complied

with RCW 42.56.520(4) by providing the review process. CP 5-6, 1 5, 1 7, 2 1 -

23, 77-80.

On January 6, 2023 an email was sent to Plaintiff stating that the

review was complete and the exemptions and redactions were correctly

applied. CP 77-80.

V. DENIAL OF APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

WAS CORRECT

The Standard of Review on a Motion for Reconsideration is Abuse of

Discretion. "We review a trial court's denial of a motion for reconsideration

for abuse of discretion, that is, discretion manifestly unreasonable or

exercised on untenable grounds or for untenable reasons.". Washington

-36-
Election Integrity Coalition United v. Schumacher, 28 Wash.App.2d 1 76,

537 P.3d 1 058 (2023). For the court's ruling to have been an abuse of

discretion, the criteria stated in Superior Court Civil Rule, CR 59, the basis

for granting a Motion for Reconsideration must have been manifestly present

while the court ignored the existence of the criteria in denying the motion.

Motions for reconsideration are addressed to the sound discretion of

the trial court and a reviewing court will not reverse a trial court's ruling

absent a showing of manifest abuse of discretion. Perry v. Hamilton, 5 1

Wash.App. 936, 93 8, 756 P.2d 1 50 (1 988). A trial court abuses discretion

when its decision is based on untenable grounds or reasons. Wagner Dev.,

Inc. v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. ofMaryland, 95 Wash.App. 896, 906, 977 P .2d

639 ( 1 999).

Wilcox v. Lexington Eye Inst. , 1 30 Wash. App. 234, 241 , 1 22 P.3d 729, 732

(2005).

Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration and Motion for Show Cause

Hearing were filed as a combined, one document motion. CP 230-250.

Appellant's motion(s) simply restated his same argument in opposition to the

Respondent's Summary Judgment Motion. CP 230-250. Superior Court

Civil Rule, CR 59 governs motions for reconsideration and provides that the

-37-
grounds are as follows:

( 1 ) Irregularity in the proceedings of the court. . . ;

(2) Misconduct ... ;

(3) Accident or surprise... ;

(4) Newly discovered evidence... ;

(5) Excessive damages... ;

(6) Error in assessment of amount of recovery... ;

(7) No evidence to justify decision... ;

(8) Error in law... ;

(9) Substantial justice has not been done.

None of the grounds listed under CR 59 were discussed or argued in

Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration. CP 230-250. Appellant simply re­

hashed the opposition to Summary Judgement and made the same arguments

he made at the Summary Judgment hearing. CP 230-250. Appellant failed

to provide any basis for the court to grant his motion. CP 230-250. The trial

court's denial ofthe Motion for Reconsideration, which failed to comply with

CR 59, was necessary. A motion cannot be granted when there is no ground

provided for granting the motion. Accordingly, Appellant is unable to

demonstrate abuse of discretion by the trial court. Appellant failed to provide

-38-
a basis for reconsideration. The motion was properly denied. This appeal

fails.

VI. DENIAL OF APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR SHOW CAUSE WAS

CORRECT

Appellant brought his Motion for Show Cause on April 22, 2024, CP

230-250. This was after the Summary Judgment Motion was granted. There

is no logic to the argument that after the granting of a Summary Judgment

motion which was dispositive of the case, that a Motion for Show Cause

Hearing should have been granted.

RCW 42.56.505 (1) states:

Judicial review of agency actions.

(1) Upon the motion of any person having been
denied an opportunity to inspect or copy a public
record by an agency, the superior court in the county
in which a record is maintained may require the
responsible agency to show cause why it has refused
to allow inspection or copying of a specific public
record or class of records. The burden of proof shall
be on the agency to establish that refusal to permit
public inspection and copying is in accordance with a
statute that exempts or prohibits disclosure in whole
or in part of specific information or records.

The RCW provides for a requestor to bring a show cause hearing for

the court to inquire as to the claimed exemption. This was unnecessary after

-39-
the Summary Judgment Motion by Respondent was granted. At that point, the

trial court had reviewed the argument in the Summary Judgment Motion, the

basis for the exemption contained in the attached affidavits and the

Opposition filed by Appellant. The trial court had before it all of the same

information that would have been provided in the show cause hearing and

had made the decision that the exemption claimed by the Respondent was

appropriate. Accordingly, there was no basis for granting the Appellant's

Motion for a Show Cause Hearing.

Additionally, RCW 42.56.505 ( 6) provides that the request for a show

cause hearing must be made within one year. "(6) Actions under this section

must be filed within one year of the agency's claim of exemption or the last

production of a record on a partial or installment basis."

The motion for show cause must be brought within one year of the

time of the denial. The request for show cause was submitted outside of that

time line and was properly denied. CP 1-10, 230-250.

Ill

Ill

-40-
Ill

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully requested that the rulings

of the trial court on the Summary Judgement Motion, The Motion for

Reconsideration and the Motion for Show Cause be upheld and this appeal

be denied.

I, June L. Riley, declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the

State of Washington, that the foregoing is true and correct.

This motion complies with the requirements of RAP 18.17(c)(l 7), I certify

that the word count pursuant to the word processing program used is 7954.

Assistant City Attorney

15 N. 3rd Avenue
Walla Walla, WA 99362
509-522-2843

-41-
 JUNE RILEY
February 18, 2025 - 9:33 AM

Transmittal Information

Filed with Court: Court of Appeals Division III

Appellate Court Case Number: 40504-4
Appellate Court Case Title: Jose Luis Rodriguez, Jr. v. City of Walla Walla Police
Department
Superior Court Case Number: 23 -2-00690-0

The following documents have been uploaded :

• 405044_Briefs_202502 l 8092 5 5 1 D3 846 802_5 828 .pdf
This File Contains :
Briefs - Respondents
The Original File Name was Respondent Briefpdf

A copy of the uploaded files will be sent to :

• [email protected]
• [email protected]

Comments :
Respondent's Brief

Sender Name : June Riley - Email : [email protected]

Address :
1 5 N 3RD AVE
WALLA WALLA, WA, 993 62- 1 859
Phone : 509-524-4497
Note: The Filing Id is 202502 18092551D3846802