FILED JULY 17, 2025 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
BRANDON EDDINS, ) ) No. 40103-1-III Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) ASOTIN COUNTY, a municipal ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION corporation, CITY OF CLARKSTON, a ) municipal corporation, and HEATHER ) HAYNES, ) ) Respondents. )
STAAB, A.C.J. — Brandon Eddins appeals from the trial court’s order for
permanent injunctive relief enjoining Asotin County (County) and the City of Clarkson
(City) from releasing any public records regarding Heather Haynes to Eddins and anyone
else. Eddins asserts that this language is a broad blanket denial of everyone’s access to
public records relating to Haynes, in violation of the Public Records Act (PRA), ch. 42.56
RCW and fails to comply with the requirements of Washington Superior Court Civil Rule
(CR) 65(d). We decline to review this issue because Eddins lacks standing. No. 40103-1-III Eddins v. Asotin County, et al.
BACKGROUND
Haynes is the named victim of domestic violence crimes alleged to have been
perpetrated by Brandon Eddins, including first degree burglary, stalking, and aiming or
discharging a firearm or dangerous weapon. The charges were filed in Asotin County
Superior Court against Eddins on February 23, 2022. A domestic violence no-contact
order protecting Haynes from Eddins was subsequently ordered.
While awaiting his criminal trial, Eddins submitted a public records request asking
the Clarkston Police Department (CPD) to mail him copies of all police reports that
mentioned his name, Haynes’s name, or the names of other listed individuals—whether
mentioned together or separately. CPD sent Eddins a letter in response, which contained
an estimated date that the requested records would be available. CPD also sent a letter to
Haynes notifying her of CPD’s intent to release the records requested by Eddins, in
which she is a listed victim, with all victim identifiers redacted unless Haynes sought
injunctive relief.
Haynes subsequently filed a complaint and motion for both immediate and
permanent injunctive relief requesting the trial court enjoin Asotin County and CPD from
releasing public records regarding Haynes to Eddins, pursuant to RCW 42.56.540.
Haynes argued that Eddins’s requests violated the domestic violence no-contact order and
were nothing more than a blatant attempt to stalk, keep tabs on, and further traumatize
Haynes. Haynes asserted that Eddins had a history of using public records to harass her.
2 No. 40103-1-III Eddins v. Asotin County, et al.
Specifically, she pointed out that Eddins had previously obtained public records, which
disclosed communications between Haynes and the victim advocate coordinator, and then
posted these communications to a Facebook group called “LC Valley puttin snitches on
blast.” Rep. of Proc. (RP) at 6.
The trial court issued an ex parte order for temporary injunctive relief and set a
future court date to consider whether the order should be extended. The same day as the
ex parte order was issued, Eddins submitted a public records request to the City Public
Works Department seeking building permits issued at Haynes’s address.
Eddins subsequently sent a letter to Haynes’s lawyer stating, “I would highly
advise against this civil action. It’s a complete waste of all our time. If [the judge]
decides to put the injunction against me, this will not keep these records from being
obtained through a private investigator.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 42, 45.
Several weeks later, the court held a hearing on Haynes’s request for a temporary
injunction. After outlining the allegations, Haynes’s attorney advised the court of her
intention to request permanent injunctive relief based on Eddins’s intent to use third-
parties to circumvent any injunction against him and indicated she would be moving to
amend her complaint and seek to expand the injunctive relief to include any individuals
or business entities acting on Eddins’s behalf. The City voiced its concerns about its
ability to comply with an injunction that prohibited it from disclosing records to unknown
friends and associates of Eddins.
3 No. 40103-1-III Eddins v. Asotin County, et al.
The trial court expressed its concern about enjoining unknown third persons from
making requests on Eddins’s behalf. The court noted that under CR 65(d), an injunction
could only bind the parties to the action, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and
attorneys. Ultimately, the trial court issued a written order that enjoined Asotin County
and Clarkston Police Department “from releasing any information regarding Haynes to
Eddins “and any other person making a public record’s [sic] request for records
pertaining to the Plaintiff pursuant to [ch. 42.56 RCW].” CP at 82-83.
Following the court’s extension of the temporary injunction, Eddins filed a
response to the lawsuit and a motion to dismiss. Eddins denied using the public records
requests to stalk or harass Haynes, denied posting them to social media, and argued that
he needed the public records to discredit Haynes as a witness in his upcoming criminal
trial.
Haynes then filed the amended complaint for permanent injunctive relief pursuant
to RCW 42.56.540, adding the City as a defendant and requesting the trial court enjoin
the County and City from releasing any records relating to Haynes that are exempt from
disclosure under RCW 42.56.240 and RCW 7.68.140. Haynes also requested the trial
court enjoin Eddins from requesting any public records relating to Haynes based on her
domestic violence no-contact order and ch. 9A.46 RCW.
In response, Eddins sent Haynes’s attorney a letter stating that “Haynes is a [drug
dealer] that I am going to expose no matter what. Nobody can [silence] me from telling
4 No. 40103-1-III Eddins v. Asotin County, et al.
the truth no matter what, not even you.” CP at 138. Haynes’s attorney filed a declaration
in the trial court and attached the letter.
The trial court then held a hearing on Haynes’s amended complaint and request for
permanent injunction. At this hearing, Haynes acknowledged that there was no authority
for the court to enjoin an unknown third party from seeking public records pertaining to
Haynes. In the alternative, Haynes, the County, and the City argued for an injunction
permanently enjoining the County and City from releasing documents relating to Haynes
to anyone. The parties asserted that Eddins was using public records requests as a way to
harass and intimidate Haynes, and that Eddins admitted that he would continue to do so
through third parties if an injunction against him was ordered.
Eddins denied that he was using public records requests to harass Haynes and
insisted that he was only attempting to find evidence to discredit her. Eddins requested
that the court void the temporary injunction, and “release [the] records of lies redacted
today.” RP at 38.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FILED JULY 17, 2025 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
BRANDON EDDINS, ) ) No. 40103-1-III Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) ASOTIN COUNTY, a municipal ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION corporation, CITY OF CLARKSTON, a ) municipal corporation, and HEATHER ) HAYNES, ) ) Respondents. )
STAAB, A.C.J. — Brandon Eddins appeals from the trial court’s order for
permanent injunctive relief enjoining Asotin County (County) and the City of Clarkson
(City) from releasing any public records regarding Heather Haynes to Eddins and anyone
else. Eddins asserts that this language is a broad blanket denial of everyone’s access to
public records relating to Haynes, in violation of the Public Records Act (PRA), ch. 42.56
RCW and fails to comply with the requirements of Washington Superior Court Civil Rule
(CR) 65(d). We decline to review this issue because Eddins lacks standing. No. 40103-1-III Eddins v. Asotin County, et al.
BACKGROUND
Haynes is the named victim of domestic violence crimes alleged to have been
perpetrated by Brandon Eddins, including first degree burglary, stalking, and aiming or
discharging a firearm or dangerous weapon. The charges were filed in Asotin County
Superior Court against Eddins on February 23, 2022. A domestic violence no-contact
order protecting Haynes from Eddins was subsequently ordered.
While awaiting his criminal trial, Eddins submitted a public records request asking
the Clarkston Police Department (CPD) to mail him copies of all police reports that
mentioned his name, Haynes’s name, or the names of other listed individuals—whether
mentioned together or separately. CPD sent Eddins a letter in response, which contained
an estimated date that the requested records would be available. CPD also sent a letter to
Haynes notifying her of CPD’s intent to release the records requested by Eddins, in
which she is a listed victim, with all victim identifiers redacted unless Haynes sought
injunctive relief.
Haynes subsequently filed a complaint and motion for both immediate and
permanent injunctive relief requesting the trial court enjoin Asotin County and CPD from
releasing public records regarding Haynes to Eddins, pursuant to RCW 42.56.540.
Haynes argued that Eddins’s requests violated the domestic violence no-contact order and
were nothing more than a blatant attempt to stalk, keep tabs on, and further traumatize
Haynes. Haynes asserted that Eddins had a history of using public records to harass her.
2 No. 40103-1-III Eddins v. Asotin County, et al.
Specifically, she pointed out that Eddins had previously obtained public records, which
disclosed communications between Haynes and the victim advocate coordinator, and then
posted these communications to a Facebook group called “LC Valley puttin snitches on
blast.” Rep. of Proc. (RP) at 6.
The trial court issued an ex parte order for temporary injunctive relief and set a
future court date to consider whether the order should be extended. The same day as the
ex parte order was issued, Eddins submitted a public records request to the City Public
Works Department seeking building permits issued at Haynes’s address.
Eddins subsequently sent a letter to Haynes’s lawyer stating, “I would highly
advise against this civil action. It’s a complete waste of all our time. If [the judge]
decides to put the injunction against me, this will not keep these records from being
obtained through a private investigator.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 42, 45.
Several weeks later, the court held a hearing on Haynes’s request for a temporary
injunction. After outlining the allegations, Haynes’s attorney advised the court of her
intention to request permanent injunctive relief based on Eddins’s intent to use third-
parties to circumvent any injunction against him and indicated she would be moving to
amend her complaint and seek to expand the injunctive relief to include any individuals
or business entities acting on Eddins’s behalf. The City voiced its concerns about its
ability to comply with an injunction that prohibited it from disclosing records to unknown
friends and associates of Eddins.
3 No. 40103-1-III Eddins v. Asotin County, et al.
The trial court expressed its concern about enjoining unknown third persons from
making requests on Eddins’s behalf. The court noted that under CR 65(d), an injunction
could only bind the parties to the action, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and
attorneys. Ultimately, the trial court issued a written order that enjoined Asotin County
and Clarkston Police Department “from releasing any information regarding Haynes to
Eddins “and any other person making a public record’s [sic] request for records
pertaining to the Plaintiff pursuant to [ch. 42.56 RCW].” CP at 82-83.
Following the court’s extension of the temporary injunction, Eddins filed a
response to the lawsuit and a motion to dismiss. Eddins denied using the public records
requests to stalk or harass Haynes, denied posting them to social media, and argued that
he needed the public records to discredit Haynes as a witness in his upcoming criminal
trial.
Haynes then filed the amended complaint for permanent injunctive relief pursuant
to RCW 42.56.540, adding the City as a defendant and requesting the trial court enjoin
the County and City from releasing any records relating to Haynes that are exempt from
disclosure under RCW 42.56.240 and RCW 7.68.140. Haynes also requested the trial
court enjoin Eddins from requesting any public records relating to Haynes based on her
domestic violence no-contact order and ch. 9A.46 RCW.
In response, Eddins sent Haynes’s attorney a letter stating that “Haynes is a [drug
dealer] that I am going to expose no matter what. Nobody can [silence] me from telling
4 No. 40103-1-III Eddins v. Asotin County, et al.
the truth no matter what, not even you.” CP at 138. Haynes’s attorney filed a declaration
in the trial court and attached the letter.
The trial court then held a hearing on Haynes’s amended complaint and request for
permanent injunction. At this hearing, Haynes acknowledged that there was no authority
for the court to enjoin an unknown third party from seeking public records pertaining to
Haynes. In the alternative, Haynes, the County, and the City argued for an injunction
permanently enjoining the County and City from releasing documents relating to Haynes
to anyone. The parties asserted that Eddins was using public records requests as a way to
harass and intimidate Haynes, and that Eddins admitted that he would continue to do so
through third parties if an injunction against him was ordered.
Eddins denied that he was using public records requests to harass Haynes and
insisted that he was only attempting to find evidence to discredit her. Eddins requested
that the court void the temporary injunction, and “release [the] records of lies redacted
today.” RP at 38. He promised that should the documents be released redacted, they
would not leave his hands.
The trial court maintained the temporary injunction and reserved its decision on a
permanent injunction. The court noted its respect for the right to inspect public
documents, but noted that Eddins actions made it very hard for the court “not to look at it
as something other than a campaign of terror.” RP at 49.
5 No. 40103-1-III Eddins v. Asotin County, et al.
Eddins subsequently submitted another public records request to CPD asking for
all police reports containing the name “Richard N. Williams” to be forwarded to him at
the Asotin County Jail. The City responded via letter stating that it found a record that
would have been responsive to the request, but that it could not be produced because it
was covered by the injunction. Eddins sent a response letter arguing that the injunction
was only for public records pertaining to a specific CPD report for Haynes, and that the
requested records were “all part of [his] investigation into [Haynes and] others false
reporting of alleged crimes” and that the withholding of such records prejudiced his
criminal case. CP at 154.
The City filed a motion requesting the court determine whether the injunction
covered the public record requested by Eddins. The trial court ruled that the records were
protected by the injunction and ordered that they not be disclosed. The court explained
that Eddins’ request was another attempt to obtain records about Haynes and that his
attorney could request information relevant to the criminal investigation through
discovery.
The trial court subsequently issued an order for permanent injunctive relief. The
order for permanent injunctive relief provides, in part:
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Temporary Restraining Order, signed July 11, 2023, enjoining Defendants Asotin County from releasing any information regarding the Plaintiff to Defendant Eddins pursuant to RCW 42.56.540 is to continue in full force in perpetuity and is supplemented by this Order. Further, Defendant City of Clarkston
6 No. 40103-1-III Eddins v. Asotin County, et al.
was timely added as a named party, per the Amended Complaint, and shall be additionally enjoined from releasing any information regarding the Plaintiff to Defendant Eddins pursuant to RCW 42.56.54[0] (to continue in full force in perpetuity).
It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that examination of those records sought by anyone, pursuant to RCW 42.56.540, would clearly not be in the public interest, would substantially and irreparable damage Plaintiff, and would violate Plaintiff’s right to privacy as well as be both highly offensive to a reasonable person, and not of legitimate public concern.
CP at 1-2.
Eddins timely appeals.
ANALYSIS
The only issue raised by Eddins on appeal is whether the court had authority to
issue a permanent injunction, preventing the County and the City from releasing records
sought by “anyone” if the records contain information about Haynes. He contends that
such an injunction is overbroad. Eddins does not contest the injunction’s application to
him personally.
The three respondents submitted briefs raising various defenses. We find
persuasive the City’s argument that review of this issue should be denied because the
issue is unpreserved and Eddins is not an aggrieved party and lacks standing to bring this
appeal on behalf of anyone but him.
“Only an aggrieved party may seek review by the appellate court.” RAP 3.1.
Standing “serves to prevent a party from raising another person’s legal right.”
7 No. 40103-1-III Eddins v. Asotin County, et al.
Washington Fed’n of State Employees, Council 2 v. State, 2 Wn.3d 1, 15, 534 P.3d 320
(2023). As the party seeking review, Eddins has the burden to show he has standing.
Benton County Water Conservancy Bd. v. Dep’t of Ecology, 3 Wn.3d 59, 67, 546 P.3d
394 (2024). Standing is a question of law that we review de novo. Id.
For a party to be aggrieved, the decision must adversely affect the party’s
property, pecuniary, personal rights, or impose a burden or obligation. Randy Reynolds
& Assocs., Inc. v. Harmon, 193 Wn.2d 143, 150, 437 P.3d 677 (2019). “‘[T]he mere fact
that a person is hurt in [their] feelings, wounded in [their] affections, or subjected to
inconvenience, annoyance, discomfort, or even expense by a decree, does not entitle [that
party] to appeal from it.’” Id. at 150-51 (alterations in original) (internal quotation marks
omitted) (quoting Elterich v. Arndt, 175 Wash. 562, 564, 27 P.2d 1102 (1933)).
Eddins fails to demonstrate that the injunction’s application to others has any
adverse affect on his rights or interests. Eddins assigns error only to that portion of the
injunction that enjoins release of information to anyone other than himself. He does not
challenge the portion of the order that enjoins the County and City from releasing
information to him. Indeed, Eddins specifically requests remand for the trial court to
modify the order “to only apply disclosure of [public records] regarding Haynes to
Eddins; not records sought by anyone.” Appellant’s Br. at 4. However, Eddins’
property, pecuniary, or personal rights are not substantially affected by this language, nor
does it impose a burden or an obligation on him.
8 No. 40103-1-III Eddins v. Asotin County, et al.
If this court granted the requested relief, Eddins’ rights would not change and
there would be no less burden or obligation imposed on him because the County and City
would still be enjoined from releasing such records to Eddins or his agents. Therefore,
Eddins does not have standing to challenge the injunction’s application to others.
We dismiss Eddins’s appeal for lack of standing.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.
_________________________________ Staab, A.C.J.
WE CONCUR:
_________________________________ Fearing, J.
_________________________________ Murphy, J.