Cortland v. Pierce County

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA BRIAN CORTLAND, CASE NO. C20-5155RJB Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S v. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY PIERCE COUNTY, JUDGMENT Defendant. This matter comes before the Court on the above-referenced motion (Dkt. 26). The Court is now, and was at the time it issued the Order Granting Summary Judgment, aware of the burden of proof found in the Washington Public Records Act. Plaintiff overlooks the fact that the case came to the Court on a Stipulated Statement of Facts for the Record (Dkt. 12), which in its attachments clearly showed the Defendant’s basis for its action. (See Dkts. 12-3 & 12-4 in particular.) The Court accepted the facts agreed by the parties and the stipulated facts clearly, in the Court’s opinion, fulfilled the County’s burden of proof. “The burden is on the agency to show a withheld record falls within an exemption and the agency is required to identify the document itself and explain how the specific exemption applies in its response to the request.” Neighborhood Alliance of Spokane County v County of Spokane, 172 Wash.2d 702, 715 (2011); RCW 42.56.550(1). The burden of proof found in RCW 42.56.550(1) was satisfied by the agreed facts in Docket Number 12 and its attachments. Plaintiff fails to show manifest error in the Court’s prior ruling, or any other basis for reconsideration. See Western District of Washington Local Civil Rule 7(h). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Motion for

Summary Judgment (Dkt. 26) is hereby DENIED. The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address. Dated this 6th day of October, 2020. A

ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge