September 20, 2006: Next court date in still ongoing PDA litigation: in Seattle, at Court of Appeals, Division I, One Union Square

Item: September 20, 2006, 9:30 AM - back in Court of Appeals (for second time since 2002) for the latest appeal (the third) in my still ongoing Public Disclosure Act (PDA) lawsuit against Ron Sims and King County over sports stadium documents.

(You are welcome to attend and observe the proceedings! Location of Court of Appeals, Division I, is One Union Square, off lobby, 600 University Street (i.e. at 6th Avenue and University Street, across street to east of entrance to Washington Athletic Club), downtown Seattle, 98101. If you decide to attend, come early to go through security, and allow plenty of time for parking, as my case follows a two or three others, but sometimes the sequence is changed at the last minute, and it could be earlier, or later. )

Subject: Update on next important event in my over 9 years of litigation and status of the litigation.

Dear Friends, Colleagues, and anyone else I thought would be interested in this matter, or who has been following the now over 9 year old saga of my Public Disclosure Act lawsuit against King County Executive Ron Sims/ King County involving sports stadium studies and related documents

As you may recall from conversations with me, hearing one of my public talks, reading prior emails, or visits to my blog or website, the outcome in this case was improved somewhat in late 2005 when the case was returned to where it started - King County Superior Court. In a "remand" proceeding, a different King County Superior Court judge (different from the original judge who tried the case in 2001, and who had since retired) raised the daily penalty from the original award of a mere $5 a day, to $15 a day. For everyone concerned with public disclosure issues, this outcome was a huge disappointment and provides no incentive for repeat misbehavior by King County and other government agencies who want to withhold documents. In fact, violations continue and, in my opinion, have become worse and more brazen and flagrant than ever.

And so I appealed - once again, and for the third time. As you may recall, I have appealed every "victory" I have won in the courts, feeling each time that the amount awarded was inadequate in light of the findings in my case of "gross negligence" and "egregious misconduct" (I am quoting from the record that has now been before 2 trial judges, 3 appellate justices, and 9 state Supreme Court justices and admitted to by King County's own lawyers). And when I say "inadequate", I include what it takes to motivate future requesters who are denied documents to file lawsuits to get the materials they seek - which, unfortunately, is all too often the only way you will get documents out of agencies who don't want to produce them. They will simply not produce, offer any number of reasons, and dare you to sue them. Most requesters can't or won't sue, if nothing else because they will look at my experience - the biggest PDA lawsuit ever in the entire United States in the 30 plus year history of state open records acts - and realize they'll be lucky if they even recover their legal expenses after 9 years of litigation. (Recall that 4 years after my original request, I got some, but not all, the documents I learned the existence of, but was awarded $36,00 less than my legal expenses incurred alone - $114,00 awarded vs. about $150,000 in costs incurred. It wasn't until another 4 years had passed, in 2005, that enough more legal fees and fines were awarded, that I actually caught up with the legal fees incurred and which, by then, had reached about $382,000.)

Here is the latest news as to what is happening.

The next important date and time in my ongoing litigation is September 20, on the 9:30 AM calendar, when oral argument is scheduled to occur in my latest appeal in my case (my 3rd appeal and 5th courtroom round, with the outcome of each prior appeal being a substantial improvement every time over whatever the prior court had ruled). This will be in downtown Seattle, at the Court of Appeals, Division I, in One Union Square, 600 University Street, Seattle, WA 98101. See:

http://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/appellatedockets/index.cfm?fa=appellatedockets.showDocket&folder=a01&year=2006&file=20060920 (3rd case down the list - if the list doesn't come up initially at that link, you may have to enter "Division 1", then the date of September 20, to get to the list).

The legal briefs on the issue on appeal now are at my website - www.ArmenYousoufian.com (at the bottom). We argue the amount of the $15 per day fine awarded by the second King County Superior Court judge in the remand proceedings in 2005, on a scale of $5 to $100 a day allowed by the Public Disclosure Act, is inadequate for the circumstances in my case, let alone to deter future violations, which, in fact, continue to occur nearly daily all over Washington state.

Additionally, an "amicus brief" supporting my position and just filed August 21 by Washington State's two major newspapers associations on behalf of six organizations (Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington, The Evergreen Freedom Foundation, The Washington Newspaper Publishers Association, The Washington Coalition for Open Government, The Center for Justice, and The Seattle Community Council Federation ) is available at the website of the Washington Coalition for Open Government (I am on their board), at:

http://www.washingtoncog.org/news/Yousoufian_brief.pdf

I'll post about the September 20 oral argument and the decision at this blog when there is more to say.

Armen Yousoufian
http://www.armenyousoufian.com/
http://www.yousoufian.blogspot.com/