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

Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.540 (2026)

Court protection of public records

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The examination of any specific public record may be enjoined if, upon motion and affidavit by an agency or its representative or a person who is named in the record or to whom the record specifically pertains, the superior court for the county in which the movant resides or in which the record is maintained, finds that such examination would clearly not be in the public interest and would substantially and irreparably damage any person, or would substantially and irreparably damage vital governmental functions. An agency has the option of notifying persons named in the record or to whom a record specifically pertains, that release of a record has been requested. However, this option does not exist where the agency is required by law to provide such notice.
[ 1992 c 139 s 7; 1975 1st ex.s. c 294 s 19; 1973 c 1 s 33 (Initiative Measure No. 276, approved November 7, 1972). Formerly RCW 42.17.330.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 96 cases (22 in the last 5 years), 2007–2025 · leading case: Lyft, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 418 P.3d 102 (Wash. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lyft, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 418 P.3d 102 (Wash. 2018). · cites it 43× “Applying the injunction standard set forth in RCW 42.56.540, such records may be enjoined from disclosure only if disclosure would clearly not be in the public interest, and would substantially and irreparably damage a person or a vital government interest.”
Soter v. Cowles Pub. Co., 174 P.3d 60 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 26× “We conclude that pursuant to RCW 42.56.540, a state or local government entity can seek judgment in superior court as to whether a particular record is subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.”
Soter v. Cowles Publ'g Co., 162 Wash. 2d 716 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 23× “We conclude that pursuant to RCW 42.56.540, a state or local government entity can seek judgment in superior court as to whether a particular record is subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.”
SEIU Healthcare 775NW v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 377 P.3d 214 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 14× “Complaint and TRO ¶9 On October 1, SEIU filed a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief against DSHS and the Foundation *387 requesting a preliminary and permanent injunction under RCW 42.56.540 prohibiting DSHS from releasing the lists of individual providers.”
Doe v. Washington State Patrol, 374 P.3d 63 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 5× “RCW 42.56.540; Spokane Police Guild v. Liquor Control Bd.”
Bainbridge Police Guild v. City of Puyallup, 259 P.3d 190 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 9× “If an agency intends to produce public records for a requester, an interested third party may seek to enjoin production under RCW 42.56.540. [2] Judicial review under the PRA and this injunction statute is de novo.”
Bainbridge Island Police Guild v. City of Puyallup, 172 Wash. 2d 398 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 9× “If an agency intends to produce public records for a requester, an interested third party may seek to enjoin production under RCW 42.56.540. 2 Judicial review under the PRA and this injunction statute is de novo.”
Seattle Times Co. v. Serko, 243 P.3d 919 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 11× “Relying on a provision of the PRA that allows a party named or referred to in a public record to seek to enjoin its release, RCW 42.56.540, they claimed the records were exempt under the PRA and that production would impair their right to a fair trial.”
Seattle Times Co. v. Serko, 170 Wash. 2d 581 (Wash. 2010). · cites it 11× “Relying on a provision of the PRA that allows a party named or referred to in a public *586 record to seek to enjoin its release, RCW 42.56.540, they claimed the records were exempt under the PRA and that production would impair their right to a fair trial.”
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP v. Off. of Attorney Gen., 179 Wash. App. 711 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 14× “RCW 42.56.540; King County Dep’t of Adult & Juvenile Det.”
Yakima Cnty. v. Yakima Herald-Repub., 170 Wash. 2d 775 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 6× “He cautioned, though, that if the paper wanted those records, “it will be necessary for this office to seek guidance from the Court pursuant to the provisions of RCW 42.56.540.” 4 Id. Mcllrath ended his response by expressing a desire to “work out a process for proceeding in a…”
DeLong v. Parmelee, 236 P.3d 936 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 9× “Parmelee, Parmelee contends that (1) the superior court improperly considered his proposed use of employee photographs when determining whether the documents were subject to disclosure under the PRA, (2) his intended use of the photographs cannot create a privacy right in the…”
Show all 96 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 42.56.540(4) — 1 case
Wash. Pub. Emps. Ass'n v. Wash. State Ctr. for Childhood Deafness & Hearing Loss (Wash. 2019).
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.