Wash. Rev. Code » Title 42 · Chapter 42.56
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.080 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1)(a) A public records request must be for identifiable records. A request for all or substantially all records prepared, owned, used, or retained by an agency is not a valid request for identifiable records under this chapter, provided that a request for all records regarding a particular topic or containing a particular keyword or name shall not be considered a request for all of an agency's records.
(b) A request for a recording required to be maintained by a school district board of directors under RCW 42.30.035(2) shall only be considered a valid request for an identifiable record when the date of the recording, or a range of dates, is specified in the request. When searching for and providing identifiable recordings, no search criteria except date must be considered by the school district.
(2) Public records shall be available for inspection and copying, and agencies shall, upon request for identifiable public records, make them promptly available to any person including, if applicable, on a partial or installment basis as records that are part of a larger set of requested records are assembled or made ready for inspection or disclosure. Agencies shall not deny a request for identifiable public records solely on the basis that the request is overbroad. Agencies shall not distinguish among persons requesting records, and such persons shall not be required to provide information as to the purpose for the request except to establish whether inspection and copying would violate RCW 42.56.070(8) or 42.56.240(14), or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records to certain persons. Agency facilities shall be made available to any person for the copying of public records except when and to the extent that this would unreasonably disrupt the operations of the agency. Agencies shall honor requests received in person during an agency's normal office hours, or by mail or email, for identifiable public records unless exempted by provisions of this chapter. No official format is required for making a records request; however, agencies may recommend that requestors submit requests using an agency provided form or web page.
(3) An agency may deny a bot request that is one of multiple requests from the requestor to the agency within a twenty-four hour period, if the agency establishes that responding to the multiple requests would cause excessive interference with other essential functions of the agency. For purposes of this subsection, "bot request" means a request for public records that an agency reasonably believes was automatically generated by a computer program or script.
[ 2023 c 67 s 1; 2017 c 304 s 2; 2016 c 163 s 3. Prior: 2005 c 483 s 1; 2005 c 274 s 285; 1987 c 403 s 4; 1975 1st ex.s. c 294 s 15; 1973 c 1 s 27 (Initiative Measure No. 276, approved November 7, 1972). Formerly RCW 42.17.270.]

Notes:

Effective date—2023 c 67: See note following RCW 42.30.035.
Finding—Intent—2016 c 163: See note following RCW 42.56.240.
Intent—Severability—1987 c 403: See notes following RCW 42.56.050.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 80 cases (21 in the last 5 years), 2006–2026 · leading case: Freedom Found. v. Dshs, 445 P.3d 971 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Freedom Found. v. Dshs, 445 P.3d 971 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 12× “520 (2010), (2) DSHS did not unlawfully distinguish between requestors and therefore did not violate former RCW 42.56.080 (2016), (3) any disparity in the timing of production between the Training Partnership and the Foundation was lawful, and (4) DSHS provided the fullest and…”
SEIU Healthcare 775NW v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 377 P.3d 214 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “RCW 42.56.080 states: Agencies shall not distinguish among persons requesting records, and such persons shall not be required to provide information as to the purpose for the request except to establish whether inspection and copying would violate RCW 42.”
Livingston v. Cedeno, 186 P.3d 1055 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 4× “[4] Accordingly, RCW 72.09.530 directs the Department to screen all incoming and outgoing materials and intercept any "contraband" in order to protect legitimate security concerns within the state penal institutions.”
Livingston v. Cedeno, 164 Wash. 2d 46 (Wash. 2008). · cites it 4× “270 (1987); RCW 42.56.080. ¶11 The primary objective of the correctional system, on the other hand, is “to provide the maximum feasible safety” *53 for the public, staff, and inmates.”
DeLong v. Parmelee, 236 P.3d 936 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “RCW 42.56.080; Livingston, 164 Wash.2d at 50 , 186 P.”
DeLong v. Parmelee, 157 Wash. App. 119 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “RCW 42.56.080; Livingston, 164 Wn.2d at 50 .”
Gronquist v. Dep't of Corr., 247 P.3d 436 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 3× “RCW 42.56.080. Agencies shall adopt and enforce reasonable rules and regulations consonant with the intent of chapter 42.”
Hobbs v. Washington State Auditor's Off., 335 P.3d 1004 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “) In addition, RCW 42.56.080 allows an agency to produce records on a “partial or installment basis.”
City of Lakewood v. Koenig, 250 P.3d 113 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 3× “RCW 42.56.080. To violate RCW 42.56.080, then, the agency must use the requester's identity to deny access to records.”
Yousoufian v. Off. of Ron Sims, 229 P.3d 735 (Wash. 2010). “Although an agency may generally not know of the potential for such loss because the PRA provides that requestors "shall not be required to provide information as to the purpose for the request," RCW 42.56.080, it is possible that an agency could acquire such knowledge.”
Yousoufian v. Off. of Sims, 168 Wash. 2d 444 (Wash. 2010). “Although an agency may generally not know of the potential for such loss because the PRA provides that requestors “shall not be required to provide information as to the purpose for the request,” RCW 42.56.080, it is possible that an agency could acquire such knowledge.”
Koenig v. City of Des Moines, 158 Wash. 2d 173 (Wash. 2006). “Recodified as RCW 42.56.080 (Laws of 2005, ch. 274, § 103) and amended by Laws of 2005, ch.”
Show all 80 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.080(1) — 5 cases
Arthur C. Banks, Res/cross-app V. City Of Tacoma, App/cross-res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
Juan Zabala v. Okanogan Cnty., 428 P.3d 124 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
Arthur West v. City Of Tacoma (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
Joel Zellmer v. Dep't Of Labor & Indus. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
Patricia N. Strand v. Spokane Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.080(1)(a) — 1 case
Eric Hood, V City Of Vancouver, 564 P.3d 1009 (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.080(2) — 20 cases
Freedom Found. v. Dshs, 445 P.3d 971 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “520 (2010), (2) DSHS did not unlawfully distinguish between requestors and therefore did not violate former RCW 42.56.080 (2016), (3) any disparity in the timing of production between the Training Partnership and the Foundation was lawful, and (4) DSHS provided the fullest and…”
David O'dea, Resp/cross App V. City Of Tacoma, Apps/cross Resps, 493 P.3d 1245 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
Love Overwhelming, V. City Of Longview, 556 P.3d 692 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
Scott T. Collins v. Chief Brian Smith (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
San Juan Cnty., V. Wa Coalition For Open Gov't (Wash. Ct. App. 2023).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.