Wash. Rev. Code » Title 42 · Chapter 42.56

Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.290

Agency party to controversy

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
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 under this chapter.
[ 2005 c 274 s 409.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2007–2023 · leading case: Soter v. Cowles Pub. Co.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Soter v. Cowles Pub. Co. (2007) wash · cites it 13× “" RCW 42.56.290 (formerly RCW 42.17.310(1)(j)).”
Soter v. Cowles Publishing Co. (2007) wash · cites it 12× “” RCW 42.56.290 (formerly RCW 42.17.310(1)(j)).”
Department of Transportation v. de Sugiyama (2014) washctapp · cites it 27× “In response, Mendoza de Sugiyama argued that the PRA gave broad access to government records, that the documents she requested were not exempt under the PRA, and that RCW 42.”
Kittitas Cnty., Corp. v. Sky Allphin, Abc Holdings, Inc. (2017) wash · cites it 7× “¶ 17 Here, Kittitas County claimed an exception from PRA disclosure under RCW 42.56.290, commonly referred to as the "controversy exception.”
Sanders v. State (2010) wash · cites it 4× “070(1) [4] and RCW 42.56.290, [5] and the work product privilege, under the latter provision.”
Sanders v. State (2010) wash · cites it 4× “070(1) 4 and RCW 42.56.290, 5 and the work product privilege, under the latter provision.”
West v. Thurston County (2012) washctapp · cites it 2× “8 Patterson’s letter cited specific exemptions, including RCW 42.56.290, which exempts [r]ecords 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…”
West v. Thurston County (2008) washctapp · cites it 4× “¶18 In dismissing West’s claim, the trial court relied on RCW 42.56.290 and the trial court’s refusal to order the disclosure of the same invoices in the Broyles action.”
Yakima County v. Yakima Herald-Republic (2011) wash · cites it 2× “¶77 Sanchez urges, however, that even if these records are governed by the PRA, the trial court properly withheld them because they are protected as work product under RCW 42.56.290. He also asserts the records are protected by the attorney-client privilege, citing Hangartner v.”
Morgan v. City of Federal Way (2009) wash · cites it 2× “RCW 42.56.290, .230(2). The PRA exempts any records related to a "controversy" that would be protected from pretrial discovery.”
Morgan v. City of Federal Way (2009) wash · cites it 2× “RCW 42.56.290, .230(2). The PRA exempts any records related to a “controversy” that would be protected from pretrial discovery.”
Block v. City of Gold Bar (2015) washctapp · cites it 3× “¶53 Under RCW 42.56.290, an agency does not have to disclose attorney work product.”
Show all 49 citing cases →
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.