Naming Names

The Washington State Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals in a case involving disclosure of the identities of police officer present at the January 6, 2021 event

Here, several members of the public made records requests to the [Seattle Police Department] regarding police officers who were present in Washington, DC, on January 6, 2021, and their activities there that day. The officers anonymously sued SPD, the Office of Police Accountability (OPA), and the requestors to prevent the release of their identities within those public records. The officers sought a preliminary injunction, arguing their identities should be exempt from disclosure based on statutory and constitutional privacy rights. However, the requested records relate to their activities at a highly publicized and public event. On this limited record, it appears that the officers have not demonstrated a likely privacy interest in such information under either theory, so they have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits that the information falls under any exemption to the release of public records under the PRA. However, the trial court proceedings occurred without clear guidance from this court on these issues, so we provide that guidance here. It appears that the trial court did not err in denying the preliminary injunction, but we remand for further proceedings based on this opinion. For similar reasons, the officers have not shown a need to proceed anonymously under pseudonym. We reverse the Court of Appeals.

Conclusion

We reverse the Court of Appeals and hold that the officers have not shown a likelihood of success on the merits that their identities are exempt based on either a statutory or constitutional right to privacy. The trial court therefore correctly denied the preliminary injunction because the officers did not satisfy the first part of the two-part PRA injunction test. Nor have the officers demonstrated a need to litigate under pseudonym. We reverse and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

STEPHENS, C.J. (concurring in part, dissenting in part)—

I concur in the majority’s decision to reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the trial court order denying a preliminary injunction. The result is to remand the case to the trial court to consider the records at issue based on current circumstances, which the parties acknowledge have changed in the years since the initial motions were considered.

I write separately because I believe the trial court must also have an opportunity to address the pseudonym issue on remand based on current circumstances. As the majority notes, a trial court’s decision to allow a party to litigate anonymously using a pseudonym constitutes a partial “closure” of court proceedings implicating article I, section 10. John Doe G v. Dep't of Corr., 190 Wn.2d 185, 201, 410 P.3d 1156 (2018). It must therefore be supported by findings pursuant to the multifactored analysis in Seattle Times Co. v. Ishikawa, 97 Wn.2d 30, 640 P.2d 716 (1982). And appellate review of the trial court’s decision is solely for abuse of discretion, without invoking the benefit of hindsight to secondguess that decision. State v. Richardson, 177 Wn.2d 351, 357, 302 P.3d 156 (2013).

JUSTICE McCLOUD

I agree with the majority’s ultimate conclusion that the Does did not establish a right to privacy, even under the United States Constitution, in their voluntary decision to appear in a classic public forum (the National Mall) at a large, well-publicized, media-attractive demonstration. I therefore concur in the majority’s decision to reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision to the contrary.

But I do not agree with the majority’s resolution of the other issue in this case—that is, the issue of whether the officers could proceed via pseudonyms while litigating this case until the trial court makes its final decision on whether disclosure of the documents sought would violate the officers’ right to privacy. Majority at 35-38. Instead, I agree with the concurrence-in-part’s resolution of that issue: plaintiffs seeking to enjoin disclosure of private information in response to a PRA request should have the opportunity to litigate in a way that enables them to reap the fruits of their victory, if they win. Concurring in part, dissenting in part (Stephens, C.J.) at 2-4. That means litigating via pseudonym.

(Mike Frisch)