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

Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.520 (2026)

Prompt responses required

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Responses to requests for public records shall be made promptly by agencies, the office of the secretary of the senate, and the office of the chief clerk of the house of representatives. Within five business days of receiving a public record request, an agency, the office of the secretary of the senate, or the office of the chief clerk of the house of representatives must respond in one of the ways provided in this subsection (1):
(a) Providing the record;
(b) Providing an internet address and link on the agency's website to the specific records requested, except that if the requester notifies the agency that he or she cannot access the records through the internet, then the agency must provide copies of the record or allow the requester to view copies using an agency computer;
(c) Acknowledging that the agency, the office of the secretary of the senate, or the office of the chief clerk of the house of representatives has received the request and providing a reasonable estimate of the time the agency, the office of the secretary of the senate, or the office of the chief clerk of the house of representatives will require to respond to the request;
(d) Acknowledging that the agency, the office of the secretary of the senate, or the office of the chief clerk of the house of representatives has received the request and asking the requestor to provide clarification for a request that is unclear, and providing, to the greatest extent possible, a reasonable estimate of the time the agency, the office of the secretary of the senate, or the office of the chief clerk of the house of representatives will require to respond to the request if it is not clarified; or
(e) Denying the public record request.
(2) Additional time required to respond to a request may be based upon the need to clarify the intent of the request, to locate and assemble the information requested, to notify third persons or agencies affected by the request, or to determine whether any of the information requested is exempt and that a denial should be made as to all or part of the request.
(3)(a) In acknowledging receipt of a public record request that is unclear, an agency, the office of the secretary of the senate, or the office of the chief clerk of the house of representatives may ask the requestor to clarify what information the requestor is seeking.
(b) If the requestor fails to respond to an agency request to clarify the request, and the entire request is unclear, the agency, the office of the secretary of the senate, or the office of the chief clerk of the house of representatives need not respond to it. Otherwise, the agency must respond, pursuant to this section, to those portions of the request that are clear.
(4) Denials of requests must be accompanied by a written statement of the specific reasons therefor. Agencies, the office of the secretary of the senate, and the office of the chief clerk of the house of representatives shall establish mechanisms for the most prompt possible review of decisions denying inspection, and such review shall be deemed completed at the end of the second business day following the denial of inspection and shall constitute final agency action or final action by the office of the secretary of the senate or the office of the chief clerk of the house of representatives for the purposes of judicial review.
[ 2017 c 303 s 3; 2010 c 69 s 2; 1995 c 397 s 15; 1992 c 139 s 6; 1975 1st ex.s. c 294 s 18; 1973 c 1 s 32 (Initiative Measure No. 276, approved November 7, 1972). Formerly RCW 42.17.320.]

Notes:

Finding—2010 c 69: "The internet provides for instant access to public records at a significantly reduced cost to the agency and the public. Agencies are encouraged to make commonly requested records available on agency websites. When an agency has made records available on its website, members of the public with computer access should be encouraged to preserve taxpayer resources by accessing those records online." [ 2010 c 69 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 102 cases (22 in the last 5 years), 2007–2026 · leading case: West v. State Dept. of Nat. Resources, 258 P.3d 78 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
West v. State Dept. of Nat. Resources, 258 P.3d 78 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 17× “See RCW 42.56.520. Whether that violation entitles the requester to a penalties award is a question that follows.”
Freedom Found. v. Dshs, 445 P.3d 971 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 13× “The court concluded that (1) DSHS’s estimate of time was reasonable under former RCW 42.56.520 (2010), (2) DSHS did not unlawfully distinguish between requestors and therefore did not violate former RCW 42.”
Hobbs v. Washington State Auditor's Off., 335 P.3d 1004 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 10× “He also argues that the superior court erred by concluding that the Auditor’s response letter was adequate, that the scope of the Auditor’s search was reasonable, and that the Auditor reasonably interpreted Hobbs’ public records request such that it had disclosed all requested…”
Theodore Roosevelt Hikel, Jr. v. City Of Lynnwood, 389 P.3d 677 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 9× “Therefore, RCW 42.56.520 allows an agency additional time either to provide the records or deny the request.”
Wade's Eastside Gun Shop, Inc. v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 372 P.3d 97 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 4× “” RCW 42.56.520. ¶44 In this case, L&I explained in its original response to the Seattle Times that it did not believe it would be able to produce the requested records until the investigations closed, likely by August 9, 2013.”
Soter v. Cowles Publ'g Co., 162 Wash. 2d 716 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 3× “RCW 42.56.520 (formerly RCW 42.17.320). The agency must either provide the records, provide a reasonable estimate of the time the agency will take to respond to the request, or deny the request.”
Soter v. Cowles Pub. Co., 174 P.3d 60 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 3× “RCW 42.56.520 (formerly RCW 42.17.320). The agency must either provide the records, provide a reasonable estimate of the time the agency will take to respond to the request, or deny the request.”
Mitchell v. Dep't of Corr., 277 P.3d 670 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “¶6 Under the PRA, on the motion of a person who has been denied an opportunity to inspect or copy a public record, the superior court may require an agency to show cause why it has refused to allow inspection or copying. RCW 42.56.550(1). 5 The agency bears the burden to show…”
Greenhalgh v. Dep't of Corr., 160 Wash. App. 706 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 3× “Please produce the records requested in accordance with RCW 42.56.520. CP at 48. The DOC treated this letter as a new PRA request, and on April 2, Izatt sent a letter to Greenhalgh, which stated: This letter is a follow-up response to your Public Disclosure Request received by…”
West v. Thurston Cnty., 275 P.3d 1200 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “Lowe, 102 Wn. App. 872, 876 , 10 P.3d 494 (2000). If the agency fails to do so, then the requester may move for an order to show cause why the public agency refused disclosure.”
Andrews v. Washington State Patrol, 334 P.3d 94 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “RCW 42.56.520. ¶15 The PRA provides a cause of action for two types of violations: (1) when an agency wrongfully denies an opportunity to inspect or copy a public record or (2) when an agency has not made a reasonable estimate of the time required to respond to the request.”
Rental Hous. Ass'n v. City of Des Moines, 165 Wash. 2d 525 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 2× “¶40 RCW 42.56.520 outlines the three options an agency has upon receiving a public records request: Responses to requests for public records shall be made promptly by agencies, the office of the secretary of the senate, and the office of the chief clerk of the house of…”
Show all 102 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.520(1) — 18 cases
Asotin Cnty. v. Richard Eggleston, 432 P.3d 1235 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Twin Harbor Fish & Wildlife, V State Fish & Wildlife (Wash. Ct. App. 2022).
Amanda Thornewell, V. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
Mario Noyola v. Dep't of Corr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
F. Robert Strahm v. Snohomish Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.520(1)(a) — 1 case
F. Robert Strahm v. Snohomish Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.520(1)(b) — 4 cases
Eric Hood, V. City Of Nooksack (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
Palmer D. Strand, et ux v. Spokane Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Talon Cutler-Flinn, V Washington State Dept. Of Corr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
Arthur C. Banks, Res/cross-app V. City Of Tacoma, App/cross-res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.520(1)(c) — 4 cases
David O'dea, Resp/cross App V. City Of Tacoma, Apps/cross Resps, 493 P.3d 1245 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
Donald Herrick v. Special Commitment Ctr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Arthur C. Banks, Res/cross-app V. City Of Tacoma, App/cross-res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
C.s.a, V. Bellevue Sch. Dist. No 405 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.520(1)(d) — 3 cases
Health Pros Nw., Inc. V State Of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Arthur C. Banks, Res/cross-app V. City Of Tacoma, App/cross-res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
Twin Harbor Fish & Wildlife, V State Fish & Wildlife (Wash. Ct. App. 2022).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.520(1)(e) — 2 cases
David O'dea, Resp/cross App V. City Of Tacoma, Apps/cross Resps, 493 P.3d 1245 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
Brian Cortland v. Lewis Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.520(2) — 5 cases
Doe v. Pierce Cnty., 433 P.3d 838 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Amanda Thornewell, V. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1 (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
Sheldon Soule, V State Attorney Gen. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
Health Pros Nw., Inc. V State Of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Twin Harbor Fish & Wildlife, V State Fish & Wildlife (Wash. Ct. App. 2022).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.520(3) — 3 cases
Freedom Found. v. Dshs, 445 P.3d 971 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “The court concluded that (1) DSHS’s estimate of time was reasonable under former RCW 42.56.520 (2010), (2) DSHS did not unlawfully distinguish between requestors and therefore did not violate former RCW 42.”
Health Pros Nw., Inc. V State Of Washington (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Eric Hood, V City Of Vancouver, 564 P.3d 1009 (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.520(3)(a) — 3 cases
Eric Hood, V City Of Vancouver, 564 P.3d 1009 (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
Donald Herrick v. Special Commitment Ctr. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Arthur West v. City Of Tacoma (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.520(3)(b) — 2 cases
Eric Hood, V City Of Vancouver, 564 P.3d 1009 (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
Arthur West v. City Of Tacoma (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.520(4) — 9 cases
Levy v. Snohomish Cnty., 272 P.3d 874 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012).
David O'dea, Resp/cross App V. City Of Tacoma, Apps/cross Resps, 493 P.3d 1245 (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
Asotin Cnty. v. Richard Eggleston, 432 P.3d 1235 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Kilduff v. San Juan Cnty. (Wash. 2019).
Arthur West v. City Of Tacoma (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
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.