FILED
FEB. 27, 2014
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
W A State Court of Appeals, Division III
COURT OF APPEALS, DIVISION III, STATE OF
WASHINGTON
ANTHONY J. PREDISIK and ) No. 31176·7·111
CHRISTOPHER KATKE, )
)
Appellants, )
) ORDER GRANTING
v. ) MOTIONS TO PUBLISH
)
SPOKANE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 81, )
)
Respondent. )
The court has considered the appellants' motion to publish, the respondent's
motion to publish, and the City of Fife's third party motion to publish the court's opinion
filed on January 23, 2014, and is of the opinion the motions should be granted.
Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the motions to publish are granted. The opinion filed by the
court on January 23,2014, shall be modified on page 1 to designate it is a published
opinion and on page 10 by deletion of the following language:
No. 31176-7-111
Predisik v. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be
printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public
record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
DATED:
PANEL: Judges Kulik, Brown, and Fearing
FOR THE COURT:
~1I1J1.t..tJ· ..~
LAUREL H. SIDDOWAY
ACTING CHIEF JUDGE
2
FILED
JAN. 23,2014
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
W A State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STAlE OF WASlllNGTON
DMSION THREE
ANTHONY J. PREDISIK and ) No,· 31176-7-ill
CHRISTOPHERKATKE, )
)
Appellants, )
) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
v, )
)
SPOKANE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 81, )
)
Respondent. )
KULIK, J. - Anthony Predisik and Christopher Katke are teachers in the Spokane
School District who were placed on administrative leave pending investigations into
alleged misconduct. The District received PRA1 requests for information regarding the
allegations against the teachers. Consequently, the District notified the teachers ofthe
specific documents that it would be disclosing. Mr. Predisik and Mr. Katke filed a
lawsuit to enjoin disclosme, claiming that the records are exempt from disclosure under
RCW 42.56.230(3), as personal information maintained in an employee's file, and under
RCW 42.56.240(1), as investigative records compiled by an investigative agency. The
1 Public Records Act, chapter 4~.56 RCW.
No. 31176-7-II1
Predisik v. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81
trial court determined that the records were not subject to an exemption to the PRA. The
court ordered disclosure with the teachers' names redacted from the records. Mr. Predisik
and Mr. Ka*e appeal. _We affIrm the trial court.
. FACTS .
Mr. Predisik. Mr. Predisik worked as a counselor at Shadle Park High School in
the Spokane School District. In November 2011, the District placed Mr. Predisik on
administrative leave pending an investigation into allegations of misconduct. Mr.
Predisik denies the allegations.
In March 2012, a reporter for The Spokesman-Review requested a copy of Mr.
Predisik's administrative leave letter from the District. The District informed Mr.
Predisik that it intended to disclose the letter in response to the PRA request. Mr.
Predisik fIled a lawsuit seeking to enjoin disclosure of the requested document.
In May 2012, the District informed Mr. Predisik that it received another records
request, this time from a reporter at KREM 2 News. Generally stated, the reporter
requested information on all district employees on administrative leave, the names ofthe
employees, and the reason for the administrative leave ifthe leave was related to
misconduct. The District told Mr. Predisik that documents that mention his name were
2
No. 31176-7-II1
Predisik v. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81
within the purview of the KREM 2 reporter's request. Mr. Predisik also sought to enjoin
the disclosure ofthese requested documents.
Mr. Katke. Mr. Katke worked as a teacher at .
. ".- ' GloverMiddle School in the
. .~ .. ,
sp~kari~school Distri~t.'On January 11, the Districtplaced Mr. Katke on administrative.
leave pending an investigation into allegations of"misconduct. Mr. Katke denies the
allegations.
In May 2012, the District informed Mr. Katke of the records request from the
KREM 2 reporter. The District informed Mr. Katke that the KREM 2 request included
documents that mentioned Mr. Katke.
Also in May 2012, a reporter from The Spokesman-Review requested from the
District any documents related to the investigation into the allegations against Mr. Katke,
his resignation, and/or any determination on the investigation. The District informed Mr.
Katke of this request. In response, Mr. Katke filed a lawsuit seeking to enjoin disclosure
ofthe requested documents.
Procedural Facts. The District identified three documents for disclosure. One
document is an administrative leave letter concerning Mr. Predisik. The other two
documents are payroll spreadsheets created in response to KREM 2's request.
3
No. 31176-7-III
Predisik v. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81
The trial court consolidated Mr. Predisik's and Mr. Katke's cases. A hearing was
held and the trial court reviewed the requested records in camera. The trial court
determined the teachers had a right to privacy in their respected identities in connection
with the allegations against them. The court also determined that the public had a
legitimate concern in the procedural steps being taken by the District in investigations
into the a;l1egations. Accordingly, the trial court ordered the District to disclose the
requested records with Mr. Predisik's and Mr. Katke's names redacted to preserve their
right to privacy. The teachers appeal.
ANALYSIS
This court reviews decisions under the PRA de novo. RCW42.56.550(3).
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 purpose of the
PRA is to provide full access to nonexempt public records. Am. Civil Liberties Union v.
Blaine Sch. Dist. No. 503,86 Wn. App. 688, 695,937 P.2d 1176 (1997).
A party seeking to enjoin production of documents under the PRA bears the
burden ofproving that an exemption to the statute prohibits production in whole or part.
Spokane Police Guild v. Liquor Control Bd., 112 Wn.2d 30,35, 769 P.2d 283 (1989).
The PRA exemptions "protect certain infonnation o~ records from disclosure" and "are
4
No. 31 176-7-II1
Predisik v. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81
provided solely to protect relevant privacy rights ... that sometimes outweigh the PRA's
broad policy in favor of disclosing public records." Resident Action Council v. Seattle
Hous~ Au,th., 177 Wn.2d 417,432,300 P.3d 376 (2013). However, exemptions under the
.-'
PRA.lU'e to be.narroWI)" 'coristrued to assure -that the public interest will be protected.
RCW 42.56.030.
RCW 42.56.230(3) exempts disclosure of "[p]ersonal information in files
maintained for employees ... of any public agency to the extent that . redact~d records. The records requests served on the District specifically identified the
> ~. (j ",'r ,
, "
teachers as the" subject ofthe request. The teachers' contention fails. Production of a
redacted record is permitted even though redaction is insufficient to protect the person's
identity. See Koenigv. City a/Des Moines, 158 Wn.2d 173, 182-83, 142 P.3d 162
(2006). Nonexempt information in a record must be produced, even if disclosure of this
information would result in the court's inability to protect the. identity of an individual.
See Bainbridge Island Police Guild v. City a/Puyallup, 172 Wn.2d 398, 417-18, 259 P.3d
190 (2011). In Bainbridge, the court recognized that the circumstances ofa public record
request may result in others figuring out the identity of the individual whose name has
been redacted to protect his privacy interest. Id. at 418. Still, the court held that even
though the individual's identity must be redacted, the requested records must be disclosed
because they were not statutorily exempt under the PRA. Id. Here, the redacted records
are not exempt even though it is possible for a third party to conclude that Mr. Predisik or
Mr. Katke is the subject of the records.
As previously stated, both the employee personal information exemption in
RCW 42.56.230(3) and the investigative records exemption in RCW 42.56.240(1) hinge
9
No. 31176-7-111
Predisik v. Spokane Sch. Dist. No. 81
on whether Mr. Predisik's and Mr. Katke's right to privacy would be violated by
disclosure. We conclude that Mr. Predisik and Mr. Katke do not have a privacy interest
in :the redacted records. Therefore, an examination into the other requirements of these
exemptions is-not needed. The redacted records are not exempt from disclosure under
RCW 42.56.230(3) or RCW 42.56.240(1).
We afftrm the trial court.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion Will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to
RCW 2.06.040.
WE CONCUR:
Brown, 1. Fearin;{ )~
~
10