Hit with $311,150 public records fine, Pierce County Prosecutor’s Office files appeal
The Pierce County Prosecutor’s Office is appealing a $311,150 public records violation.
Thurston County Superior Court Judge Christopher Lanese ordered last month that Pierce County pay the penalty for records he found prosecutors improperly withheld or redacted while responding to a public records request from Tim Kienberger.
Lanese ordered Aug. 15 that enforcement of his July 26 decision be stayed, pending the appeal.
Kienberger requested emails, meeting notes and other documents in 2013 and again in 2016 regarding an investigation of alleged elder abuse of a family member, according to the lawsuit Kienberger filed last year in Thurston County.
The prosecutor’s office “withheld and redacted hundreds of pages of public records, and then prolonged its response to the renewed request, repeating improper redactions and withholdings,” the lawsuit alleged.
Kienberger wanted the records because he suspected former Pierce County Prosecutor Mark Lindquist chose not to prosecute an elder abuse case involving alleged financial exploitation of Kienberger’s mother-in-law “because some of the involved family members were politically influential,” the lawsuit says.
Pierce County wrote in its motion to stay enforcement of the judge’s decision pending appeal: “There are debatable issues present whether the records have been properly withheld under the work product privilege and other claimed exemptions, other violations, and the award of penalties, and attorney fees and costs.”
Asked about the decision to appeal, current Pierce County Prosecutor Mary Robnett — who took office in January — said it’s an important case for her office and other public agencies in the state.
“The plaintiff is in possession of the records and the fees have stopped. The issue regarding the work product privilege is such a significant issue that we’re seeking guidance from the appellate court,” Robnett said. “Once we get guidance from the appellate court, we will be in a better position to evaluate asserting that privilege going forward.”
The work product privilege exemption to the state’s public record law says that: “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 are exempt from disclosure.”
“We try to be transparent,” Robnett said. “There are certain records that are a work product and are not subject to public records disclosure. That’s what is at issue in this case.”
Kienberger said in a statement that the prosecutor’s office “refuses to be transparent and continues to waste taxpayer resources battling against open communication with the public they serve. They have fueled the suspicion that their decision to decline prosecution in an elder abuse case was politically motivated and now are covering this up.
“Prolonging the fight before the appellate courts punishes me for simply asking to see the records that should be open for all to see upon request.”
This story was originally published August 27, 2019 at 7:07 AM with the headline "Hit with $311,150 public records fine, Pierce County Prosecutor’s Office files appeal."
