Supreme Court: email metadata is subject to public disclosure

Posted on October 7, 2010 by Michael Reitz

O'Neill v. City of Shoreline, No. 82397-9. In a case of first impression, the Supreme Court ruled this morning that metadata associated with public records such as email is a public record, subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. Justice Susan Owens wrote the majority opinion (signed by Sanders, Chambers, Fairhurst, and Stephens). Justice Gerry Alexander wrote a dissent (signed by Madsen, C.Johnson, and J.Johnson).

During a public meeting, Shoreline Deputy Mayor Maggie Fimia referred to an email she had received that alleged misconduct by council members. Fimia mentioned erroneously that the email was sent by Beth O'Neill. O'Neill requested a copy of the email. Fimia forwarded O'Neill a copy of the email without the “to” and “from” lines.” O’Neill then requested all information surrounding the email. An original, unaltered copy of the email string was provided. After the second disclosure, O’Neill requested the metadata (hidden information about electronic documents) from the email chain. Apparently, however, the original email in electronic form was deleted.

O’Neill sued, alleging a violation of the Public Records Act. The trial dismissed the case, but the Court of Appeals ruled that metadata must be disclosed under the PRA. The city and deputy mayor appealed.

The Supreme Court resolved four questions: 1) Is e-mail metadata a public record that must be disclosed under the PRA? 2) Does a request to see an e-mail inherently include a request to see metadata? 3) Did the Court of Appeals err by granting attorney fees? 4) Can a public records request be decided on affidavits alone?

On the first issue, the Supreme Court noted the broad definitions in the PRA that are intended to give the public control over their government. Therefore, “an electronic version of a record, including its embedded metadata, is a public record subject to disclosure. There is no doubt here that the relevant e-mail itself is a public record, so its embedded metadata is also a public record and must be disclosed.”

Second, the court held that metadata must be explicitly requested in order to trigger an agency’s obligation to provide it.

Third, the court remanded the case to trial court to determine whether a violation of the PRA actually occurred, and denied attorneys fees until such a determination is made.

Finally, the court held that the PRA allows a hearing to be conducted based solely on affidavits.

 (briefs, argument)

Tags: , , , ,

Tomorrow's opinions, October 7, 2010

Posted on October 6, 2010 by Michael Reitz

The Supreme Court will issue opinions in several cases tomorrow.

Forbes v. American Building Maintenance Company West, No. 82950-1. Whether the plaintiff has to pay prejudgment interest on attorney fees to her attorney, and whether a settlement was properly modified. Attorney Mary Schultz represented Cheryl Forbes in an employment discrimination suit against American Building Maintenance. Schultz won the trial and the first appeal. Schultz and Forbes had a falling out, and while the case was on appeal to the Supreme Court Forbes fired Schultz and accepted a settlement offer by ABM. ABM deposited the settlement money in the court registry until the court could decide how much Schultz was entitled to. The trial court awarded prejudgment interest on the attorney's fees, and Forbes challenges this award. (briefs, argument)

O'Neill v. City of Shoreline, No. 82397-9. This case revolves around whether email "metadata" is subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. During a public meeting, the mayor of Shoreline referred to an email alleging misconduct by council members, and claimed erroneously that the email was sent by Beth O'Neill. O'Neill requested a copy of the email. The mayor provided O'Neill with a copy of the email without its header information (to, from, etc.), and the original email was apparently deleted. (briefs, argument)

State v. Garcia-Salgado, No. 83156-4. Did the State violate the U.S. or Washington Constitutions when it procured Garcia-Salgado’s DNA pursuant to a court order? (briefs, argument)

State v. Ish, No. 83308-7. Whether a prosecutor informing the jury that a witness agreed to a plea bargain requiring truthful testimony constitutes vouching for his credibility. Nathaniel Ish murdered his girlfriend and was arrested and imprisoned prior to trial. While in prison he talked to David Otterson, his cell mate, about the murder. The state made a plea agreement with Otterson which, in part, required him to testify truthfully at Ish's trial. While examining Otterson at trial, the prosecutor brought out the information that the plea agreement required Otterson to testify truthfully and that it could be revoked if Otterson breached it. Ish claims this was improperly vouching for the witness. (briefs, argument)

State v. Moeurn, No. 82995-1. Lauren Moeurn appeals his conviction and sentence for second degree assault with a deadly weapon enhancement. He argued that (1) the evidence was insufficient to prove he was the person who hit the victim; (2) prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments deprived him of his right to a fair trial; and (3) the trial court miscalculated his offender score. The Supreme Court accepted the petition for review only on the offender score issue.

State v. Stubbs, No. 81650-6. This case concerns whether a stabbing that results in partial paralysis satisfies the requirement for an exceptional sentence for first degree assault, and whether the requirement itself is unconstitutionally vague. Troy Stubbs stabbed Ryan Goodwin in the neck, severing his spinal cord and paralyzing him from the waist down. Stubbs was convicted of first degree assault and given an exceptional sentence due to his victim's injuries. The court held that the jury could find that Goodwin's injuries substantially exceeded the great bodily harm element. (briefs, argument)

Tags: , , , , , ,

Today's arguments - March 16, 2010

Posted on March 16, 2010 by Jonathan Bechtle

The Court will hear four arguments today concerning gun possession, rental agreements, child rape and metadata in emails. (Docket, briefs)

Morning session, starting at 9:00 a.m.

Rivard v. State, No. 82431-2. This case concerns whether the current statutory prohibition on possessing firearms for felons who commit a "serious offense" can be applied retroactively.

James Rivard was convicted of vehicular homicide in 1994. At the time, vehicular homicide was a class B felony, and only class A felons permanently forfeited their right to possess firearms. But a judge mistakenly sentenced Rivard to forfeiture of this right.

The legislature subsequently amended the firearm statute to prohibit firearms to anyone convicted of a “serious offense,” including vehicular homicide.

After he was released from prison, Rivard petitioned for restoration of his firearm rights. The trial court granted the petition, applying the 1994 law and holding that the original forfeiture was invalid. Division Three Court of Appeals, however, held that the firearm regulations are regulatory rather than punitive, and so can be applied retroactively.

Little Mountain Estates Tenant Assoc. v. Little Mountain Estates, No. 82574-2. Argument in this case centers around whether the Manufactured/Mobile Home Tenant Act requires a 25-year fixed rate deal in a mobile home lease to be freely transferrable, or if it can be limited to the first signer.

Little Mountain Estates, a mobile home park, offered a 25-year fixed rate lease deal to attract tenants. The lease agreements provided that if a tenant assigned (transferred) his lease to someone else, it would convert to a one or two year lease.

Several tenants sued, claiming that the assignment clause violates the Manufactured/Mobile Home Landlord Tenant Act. The MHLTA requires all leases to be assignable, and the tenants claim that this means they must be able to transfer all their rights under the lease, including the “fixed rent for 25 years” provision.

Plaintiffs lost at Skagit County Superior Court, but successfully appealed to Division One Court of Appeals.

Afternoon session, starting at 1:30 p.m.

State v. Patel, No. 82649-8. Here the Court must decide whether a person can be convicted of attempted child rape when the victim was only posing as a child.

Mitel Patel was caught in a police sting operation when he chatted with a detective pretending to be a 13-year-old girl and went to meet and have sex with “her.” He was convicted of attempted rape of a child.

Child rape is a strict liability crime, meaning that the state must prove that the victim was underage, but not that the defendant knew she was underage. Patel argues that the state did not offer proof that the intended victim (the detective) was underage, and thus did not prove an essential element of the attempted crime. The Spokane County Superior Court and Division Three Court of Appeals disagreed, holding it sufficient that Patel believed his intended victim to be underage.

O'Neill v. City of Shoreline, No. 82397-9. This case revolves around whether email "metadata" is subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.

During a public meeting, the mayor of Shoreline referred to an email alleging misconduct by council members, and claimed erroneously that the email was sent by Beth O'Neill. O'Neill requested a copy of the email. The mayor provided O'Neill with a copy of the email without its header information (to, from, etc.), then deleted the original email. O'Neill filed several requests trying to get an electronic copy of the email, including all the metadata. Since the message had been deleted, the City never could produce the metadata.

The Division One Court of Appeals held that the metadata was a public record which the City was obligated to provide. But it also ruled that O'Neill's first request, which was simply for "a copy of the email," did not imply a request for the metadata. Only her subsequent requests, in which she was more specific about wanting an electronic copy of the email and its associated metadata, put the City in violation of the PRA when they did not provide those records. The City argues that at most, the metadata is “a public record with no retention value,” like an envelope. 

Tags: , , , ,

New cases granted review

Posted on April 30, 2009 by Michael Reitz

The Supreme Court issued orders granting review in several cases on April 28, including a public records case, and a petition for restoration of the right to possess a firearm. Orders here.

  • O’Neill v. City of Shoreline, No. 82397-9
  • Hudson v. Hapner, No. 82409-6
  • Rivard v. State, No. 82431-2
  • Kelley v. Centennial Contractors, No. 82474-6

UPDATE: Case details after the jump.

O’Neill v. City of Shoreline, No. 82397-9 (whether email metadata is a public record under the Public Records Act). The issue is whether an email's "metadata" (e.g.,the To, From, Date, & Subject fields, the sender's IP address, and other data embedded in the email) attached to a public official's email are subject to disclosure. During a city council meeting, Deputy Mayor Maggie Fimia mentioned she had received an email from two citizens regarding a zoning issue. One of the persons identified, Beth O’Neill, was in the audience, but had not sent the email. She requested to see a copy. Fimia forwarded the email from her personal computer to a public account, and the original metadata was stripped off in the process. O'Neill was given a copy of the forwarded email, but requested to see the original, which had since been deleted from Fimia's computer. The Court of Appeals held that metadata is a “public record” within the Public Records Act, and is subject to disclosure.

Hudson v. Hapner, No. 82409-6 (withdrawal of voluntary request for trial). In 1998, Clifford Hapner drove his vehicle into the rear of Lea Hudson's vehicle. Hudson sued Hapner, his wife, and his employer, Matthew Norton Corporation, and the case went to mandatory arbitration. The arbitrator awarded Hudson $14,538 in damages, and Hapner requested a trial. In 2003, a jury awarded Hudson $292,298. Hapner appealed, arguing successfully that the trial court improperly excluded his expert's testimony. After remand, Hapner filed a notice of voluntary withdrawal of his request for trial, obviously recognizing the utility of paying the damages awarded in arbitration. The trial court denied his withdrawal of request for trial. On appeal, the Court of Appeals said Hapner had the right to voluntarily withdraw his trial request without court permission; the Mandatory Arbitration Rules (MARs) did not preclude Hapner from voluntarily withdrawing trial request after trial judgment was reversed on appeal; and Hapner did not “waive” his right to voluntarily withdraw trial request by proceeding to trial.

Rivard v. State, No. 82431-2 (restoration of right to possess firearm).Following an automobile accident that occurred in 1993, James Rivard was charged with vehicular homicide, and pleaded guilty in June 1997. The judgment and sentence were entered according to the vehicular homicide statute in effect in 1993. The law in 1993 prohibited Rivard from possessing a firearm while he was under DOC supervision. After serving his sentence and paying his court-imposed financial obligations, Rivard petitioned the court to restore his right to possess firearms in September 2006. The trial court granted his petition, and the State appealed. The State argued the legislature reclassified vehicular homicide from a class B felony to a class A felony in 1996, and the law prohibits those convicted of a class A felony from ever possessing a firearm. Before the Court of Appeals, the State argued that the law in effect on the date Rivard was originally sentenced is irrelevant. The Court of Appeals concluded the State was correct, and reversed the trial court's order restoring his right to possess firearms.

Kelley v. Centennial Contractors, No. 82474-6 (dismissal of loss of parental consortium claims). In 2003, Phillip Blackshear was injured in a work accident. Phillip and his wife sued the construction contractor for negligence, but did not assert a claim of loss of parental consortium on behalf of their three children. A jury returned a verdict for the Blackshears, finding Centennial negligent. Subsequently, the parents filed a petition to obtain the appointment of a guardian ad litem to pursue the matter on behalf of the children based on the loss of parental consortium. A court commissioner appointed George Kelley as GAL. The trial court dismissed the children's case with prejudice. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the issue of whether children's loss of parental consortium claim was required to be dismissed did not become moot after parent's underlying negligence claim had been adjudged.
Tags: , , , ,