King County wanted Pierce County judge to turn over audio, but state Supreme Court said no
The Washington Supreme Court won’t order Pierce County’s presiding judge to turn over audiotapes of lawsuit proceedings used by court reporters or to search “private files and devices” of court employees, it said in an opinion Thursday.
King County asked the high court for the order, a writ of mandamus, as part of an appeal in a lawsuit brought against King County by a former public defender, who alleged stalking by a former client led to a hostile work environment.
“We dismiss King County’s petition because it fails to demonstrate why we should grant the extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus. In doing so, we hold that a superior court presiding judge is not the proper subject of a writ of mandamus to turn over audiotapes or other records,” Justice Susan Owens wrote for the majority.
Justices Charles W. Johnson, Barbara A. Madsen, Debra L. Stephens, Mary I. Yu and Justice Pro Tempore Richard T. Okrent signed the opinion.
Chief Justice Steven C. González wrote a concurrence, which was signed by Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud and Justice Pro Tempore Robert Lawrence-Berrey.
“Trial court judges routinely authorize court reporters to record proceedings, sometimes on the court reporters’ own equipment, in the interests of producing an accurate transcript,” González wrote in the concurrence. “These recordings are not the official record of the proceedings, and the court reporters are not required to keep the recordings or to file them with the clerk of the court.”
Those recordings might be relevant in this case, even though King County didn’t meet the standard for the order it wanted, the concurring justices found.
“While I concur with the majority that King County has not shown it is entitled to a writ of mandamus against Judge Sorensen (Presiding Judge Philip K. Sorensen), the best outcome is for the recordings to be made available to the county with a protective order strictly limiting their use and retention,” González wrote.
Request for audio related to potential judicial misconduct claim
The lawsuit brought in 2015 by the former public defender, Sheila LaRose, went to trial in Pierce County last year in Superior Court Judge Stanley J. Rumbaugh’s courtroom. State law allows King County to be sued in Pierce County.
King County appealed after a jury awarded her $7 million in damages and $4.9 million in attorney fees and costs.
An attorney for King County “became concerned that Judge Rumbaugh was hostile toward her in front of the jury and that such hostility gave the jury a negative impression of her, King County, and their side of the case,” Owens wrote.
The attorney sought recordings of the trial to see if they “had a viable claim for judicial misconduct,” Owens wrote.
Rumbaugh denied that motion and said the attorney could file a public records request.
King County made various requests for audio of the proceedings and was denied. A public records officer said the recordings of the trial were the private work product of the court reporters on the case. King County ultimately asked Pierce County Presiding Judge Philip K. Sorensen to review the matter.
Sorensen turned over some additional emails related to the trial as part of his search, but he didn’t turn over the audio.
“Judge Sorensen affirmed (the public records officer’s) decision not to turn over the audio recordings, explaining, ‘I have reviewed the decisions of the Public Records Office and I decline to change them,’ ” Owens wrote.
That’s when King County went to the state’s high court, asking for a writ of mandamus to, among other things, force Sorensen to hand over any audio recordings of the trial and to search the personal and work accounts of court employees and elected officials for relevant records.
Explaining the high court’s decision to dismiss the petition, Owens wrote for the majority that “King County fails to show that Judge Sorensen has a clear duty to personally respond to record requests and search for responsive records under” State Court Rules, and that “King County has plain, speedy, and adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law.”
For example, the high court said King County could try to get a judgment in Pierce County Superior Court as to whether the clerk had to turn over the audiotapes.
Sorensen argued that the superior court clerk is in charge of records, and that it’s not the presiding judge’s job to provide access to them.
The high court agreed that’s not the duty of the presiding judge.
The justices didn’t get into whether the tapes of a court reporter are court records or administrative records, a footnote in the majority’s opinion said.
‘More difficult for the public to review audio recordings and other records’
Asked about the opinion, a spokesperson for the Pierce County Prosecutor’s Office, which represented Sorensen, said they didn’t have any additional comment.
King County Executive Dow Constantine and King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg said in a joint statement Friday: “The Supreme Court’s decision yesterday recognizes the important need for public transparency in the judicial process, especially when considering allegations of misconduct by a judge. However, its decision makes it more difficult for the public to review audio recordings and other records made by court employees in the course of their official duties.”
Their statement went on to say: “If these records were held by any other branch of government, they would have been timely produced under the Public Records Act (PRA). The Supreme Court’s own General Rules were intended to bring PRA-like transparency to judicial branch operations. But yesterday’s decision, which rejects the use of a writ of mandamus to enforce judicial transparency even though it is a specified remedy in General Rule 31.1 (the State Court Rule regarding access to administrative records), demonstrates that available judicial mechanisms for access to records are time-consuming, cumbersome and fall short of open government expectations embodied in the PRA. King County will continue to encourage transparency and pursue the audio records through the declaratory judgment mechanism outlined in the Supreme Court’s opinion.”
Briefs supporting King County were filed by Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington, the Washington Coalition for Open Government, and the state Public Defender Association. The former public defender who sued filed a brief in support of Judge Sorensen.
“This Court must protect public access to Washington court records so the people will have faith and confidence in an ethical and fair judiciary,” Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington and Washington Coalition for Open Government wrote in their brief. “In this first case interpreting GR 31.1, the Court should provide for speedy decisions and liberal disclosure of administrative records, while recognizing that the particular records at issue here are actually case records warranting the strongest possible protection of public access.”
