¶30 (concurring in part and dissenting in part) — I concur in most of the majority’s opinion, but I respectfully dissent from its holding that West is entitled to some level of costs, attorney fees, and penalties under former RCW 42.56.550(4) (2005), amended by Laws of 2011, ch. 273, § l,8 for the State’s failure to respond to his October 19, 2007 public records request within 5 business days as required by former RCW 42.56.520 (1995), amended by Laws of 2010, ch. 69, § 2. Although I agree with the majority that Washington State Department of Natural Resources *249(DNR) violated the Public Records Act (PRA)9 when it waited 11 days to respond to West’s October 2007 request, I do not agree that former RCW 42.56.550(4) impliedly provides a monetary remedy for this type of violation, especially where, as here, DNR otherwise timely produced thousands of pages of documents spanning a 2-year period after West clarified his initial broad-based request.
¶31 The first sentence of former RCW 42.56.550(4) provides:
Any person who prevails against an agency in any action in the courts seeking the right to inspect or copy any public record or the right to receive a response to a public record request within a reasonable amount of time shall be awarded all costs, including reasonable attorney fees, incurred in connection with such legal action.
(Emphasis added.)
I. West Did Not Prevail in an Action Seeking Access to Public Records
¶32 As DNR points out in its brief, West did not obtain the right to inspect and to receive the documents he requested on October 19,2007, by “ ‘prevailing] ... in any action in the courts,’ ” the first clause of the first sentence of former RCW 42.56.550(4). Br. of Resp’t at 12 (quoting former RCW 42.56.550(4)). On the contrary, DNR provided West with the first 80 pages of requested documents and an estimate of the time it would take to compile the other documents within 11 days of his request, weeks before he filed his first PRA action against DNR. Moreover, the superior court ultimately dismissed West’s action for lack of jurisdiction because he had failed to serve DNR. West has not “prevail [ed] against an agency in any action in the courts seeking the right to inspect or copy any public record.” Former RCW 42.56-.550(4). Thus, he does not fall within the first category of *250persons entitled to a monetary remedy under former RCW 42.56.550(4) for a PRA violation.
II. West Did Not Prevail in Action Seeking Reasonable-Time Response to Record Request
¶33 Although former RCW 42.56.520 clearly requires an agency to respond to a PRA request within five business days, the second clause of the first sentence of former RCW 42.56.550(4) neither cross-references RCW 42.56.520 nor reiterates five days as a strict outer time limit for purposes of subjecting an agency to monetary sanctions if the agency fails to respond to a PRA request within five days. Rather, this second clause of the first sentence of former RCW 42.56.550(4) uses the flexible term “within a reasonable amount of time.” In seeking a monetary award under former RCW 42.56.550(4), West argued below, as he argues on appeal, that he is entitled to a monetary award based on DNR’s acknowledged failure to provide any response, other than acknowledging receipt of his PRA request, within the first five business days.
¶34 DNR acknowledges that it did not respond to West’s October 2007 public records request for 11 days after receiving it. The superior court found (1) that DNR “lack[ed] procedural compliance with [former] RCW 42.56.520” by failing to respond to West’s request within the statutorily prescribed 5 days;10 but (2) that DNR’s response was “reasonable”
[g]iven the scope of Mr. West’s public records requests, which resulted in production of over 13,000 pages, and the events that occurred after [DNR’s] November 5, 2007[] request for clarification when the parties exchanged information clarifying and defining the scope of the request.
Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 306-07 (Finding of Fact (FF) 11). In light of West’s voluminous production request and DNR’s *251timely fulfilling it, the superior court further found that DNR’s “lack of procedural compliance with [former] RCW 42.56.520” did not affect DNR’s performance of its responsibilities under the PRA. CP at 307 (FF 12).
¶35 In other words, the trial court found that (1) DNR’s Herculean efforts in producing thousands of pages of documents in response to West’s broad and complex request substantially complied with its responsibilities under the PRA, despite DNR’s initial six-day tardiness in responding to the request and producing the first installment of documents; and (2) the PRA did not require imposition of an award to West under these circumstances.
¶36 West fails to support with persuasive facts or law his assertion that DNR’s “delays” resulted in obstruction of public disclosure. Br. of Appellant at 19. Furthermore, contrary to his assertion that he should receive at least a minimum award for DNR’s five-day response time violation, the cases he cites support imposition of penalties under former RCW 42.56.550(4) only in situations in which the agency improperly withheld requested documents altogether. He cites no case imposing or upholding a penalty in a case like this one, where DNR produced 3,200 pages of requested documents within six weeks of West’s original request, well before he filed his first action against DNR.
¶37 The plain language of former RCW 42.56.550(4)’s first sentence, second clause, requires an award of costs and attorney fees only to a person “who prevails against an agency in any action in the courts seeking . . . the right to receive a response to a public record request within a reasonable amount of time.” Even though DNR produced the remaining thousands of documents within a month after West filed his lawsuit, he fails to show that it was his legal action that prompted DNR’s response; on the contrary, the superior court clearly found that DNR made prodigiously reasonable efforts to comply with West’s monumental requests within a reasonable time. See, e.g., CP at 305-07 (FF 7, 11, 12). More importantly, because the supe*252rior court dismissed West’s action, which dismissal West did not appeal, he fails to show that he “prevailed” in an action against DNR involving the seeking of a response to his PRA request. In short, West is not entitled to an award of costs and attorney fees under either clause of the first sentence of former RCW 42.56.550(4).
III. No Denial of Right To Inspect Public Records
¶38 The second sentence of former RCW 42.56.550(4) provides:
In addition, it shall be within the discretion of the court to award such person an amount not less than five dollars and not to exceed one hundred dollars for each day that he or she was denied the right to inspect or copy said public record.
(Emphasis added.) As with the first sentence of this statute, West fails to show that he is entitled to seek the superior court’s exercise of its discretion to assess a penalty against DNR under the second sentence because he fails to show that DNR denied him the right to inspect or to copy any public records that he requested and to which he was entitled.11
¶39 The majority holds that West is nevertheless entitled to a remand to the superior court with instructions to exercise its discretion under the second sentence of former RCW 42.56.550(4) because DNR’s delay in responding to West’s initial records request denied him access for 6 days — from the time of the required response within 5 days until DNR’s response within 11 days. I reiterate that I find no such authorizing language in the statute. Nor do any Washington PRA cases decided thus far allow or mandate imposition of a monetary penalty or assessment of attorney *253fees and costs against an agency for failing to respond within 5 days of a request when the agency fulfills that request within a reasonable time, taking into consideration the breadth of the request and the complexity of the response it generated. I would affirm the superior court’s denial of costs, attorney fees, and penalties to West under former RCW 42.56.550(4).
Reconsideration denied October 24, 2011.¶40 I concur in part and dissent in part.
On May 5, 2011, our state legislature reenacted and amended the former version of this statute by permitting courts to impose a daily penalty of less than five dollars a day, effective July 22, 2011.
Ch. 42.56 RCW.
Clerk’s Papers at 307 (Finding of Fact 12).
West maintains on appeal that DNR wrongfully denied him the right to inspect 80 pages of e-mails that the superior court reviewed in camera and ruled exempt as attorney work product. But we affirm the superior court on this point; thus, even on appeal he fails to show any denial of access to public records to which he was entitled under the law.