By Miki Mullor

Special Coverage

Dec. 15, 2023: A King County Superior Court judge today dismissed a lawsuit filed by former city councilman Ramiro Valderrama alleging Public Records Act violations.

The judge granted a Summary Judgment motion by the city and denied a competing motion by Valderrama. The case was slated to go to trial in March, but a Summary Judgment means there was enough evidence to conclude the case based on information already filed with the court. The ruling is a sweeping victory for the city and a crushing defeat for Valderrama.

In ruling for the city and against Valderrama, Judge Paul Crisalli concluded that several pieces of Valderrama’s testimony, declarations, and depositions he obtained were based on hearsay and speculation.

A political and legal saga, the PRR case was started by Valderrama against the city and several council members almost two years ago.

Superior Court Judge Paul Crisalli’s order:

• Exonerates former Mayor Christie Malchow, former council member Ken Gamblin and council member Kent Treen of wrongdoing.
• Ends a host of conspiracy theories advanced by Valderrama since late 2021.
• Found that certain depositions and testimony were based on hearsay and speculation.

Valderrama filed his lawsuit after engaging in a year-long public campaign in which he accused Malchow 26 times during city council meetings in 2022 of breaking the public records law. Valderrama, who coined his accusations “Malchowgate”, did not present evidence during these meetings to back his accusations.

Accusation of illegal records withholding

Washington’s Public Records Act (PRA) is a law that grants the public wide access to records created and used by governments. It is very similar to the more widely known Federal FOIA (the US Freedom of Information Act).

The PRA allows anyone to submit a public records request (known as “PRR”) to any government body.

The Sammamish Comment has used PRRs extensively over the years, which led to some of the most important stories we published.  In local municipalities, the city clerk is tasked with fulfilling PRRs, a role which sometimes conflicts with personal or political interests of officials.

Valderrama filed a lawsuit against the City of Sammamish in March 2023, because of the concern, as stated in court documents, that five of the seven Councilmembers serving in 2021 and 2022 – Christie Malchow, Kent Treen, Ken Gamblin, Karen Moran, and Tom Odell – appeared to be acting in concert at council meetings to oppose growth and development in the city.  Valderrama alleged that council members were using personal phones and “encrypted apps” (e.g., WhatsApp) to avoid public disclosure of their communications.

A jury trial was set for March 2024. In the following months, the parties engaged in a stage of litigation known as “discovery”, in which the parties exchange documents and information based on requests they make to each other, as well as taking depositions of witnesses. 

From March through July, Valderrama’s attorneys took nine depositions of current and former council members, as well as of three citizens: Stephanie Rudat, Michael Scoles and Sarah Kimsey.

Valderrama: the city should sue its council members 

In November, both parties filed motions for a summary judgment.  A summary judgment is an alternative to a jury trial at times when the facts of the case are not disputed.  A judge reviews the record of evidence, applies the law to the facts and can issue a judgment or deny the motion. If the motion is denied, because factual dispute exists, then the case proceeds to a jury trial.

Valderrama moved for a partial summary judgment that the city is liable for violation of the public records act because Malchow, Gamblin and Treen allegedly failed to search their personal devices for public records.  The motion is considered “partial” because it only applied to three council members, not all.

Valderrama’s attorney argued that the city should have sued its own council members to retrieve what he believed were public records on private phones: “The facts set forth in this motion for summary judgment demonstrate that it is the official policy of the City to Sammamish to violate the Public Records Act…The facts also demonstrate that City has been acting consistently with this policy for almost two years. The City Council, City Manager, and City Attorneys are all culpable.” 

Valderram’s counsel also wrote in his motion, “the City’s refusal to take the steps needed to conduct adequate searches of its elected officials’ private devices and accounts undermines the integrity of the PRA. [Valderrama] is doing what the City should have done years ago: bring legal action to attempt to recover what encrypted public records can be recovered from elected officials who chose to communicate in private about the public’s business.”

In its response, the city told the court that “in a four-page introduction that reads more like a tabloid than a legal brief, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment begins by offering sweeping and baseless assertions that malign the City, City Council, City Manager, and City Attorney. For example, Plaintiff spends an entire paragraph on page one alleging that “a majority of a prior City Council [and one current Councilmember] conducted City business over a period of years using encrypted applications on their private phones and computers,” but then fails to support this contention with any evidence in his motion.”

City: Valderrama has shown no evidence

The city also moved for a summary judgment and for a dismissal of the case altogether:

“[Valderrama] issued three PRA [Public Records Act] requests based on rumors that city council members were using “encrypted applications” on their personal electronic devices to conduct city business in an attempt to avoid public scrutiny. When records produced by the City did not support his theory, he filed this lawsuit to try and prove otherwise. The extensive discovery [Valderrama] has conducted in this case does not support his narrative—nor does the law that relates to the PRA,” wrote the city’s outside counsel, Kari Lester, in her brief.  

In another brief, the city chastised Valderrama’s case: “[Valderrama’s] Response, like his Motion [for Summary Judgement], is a missive focused on inadmissible hearsay, speculation, innuendo, and ad hominem attacks—not any specific facts or admissible evidence. Plaintiff has not met his burden to rebut the City’s evidence. The City is entitled to dismissal.”

Testimony ruled hearsay and speculative

Valderrama’s key argument was that council members acted in bad faith when they produced records in response to his PRRs.  The argument rested on the deposition of Rudat, who sought to establish nefarious intent by council members and this author, but whose testimony was characterized by the city as hearsay and speculation.

The city asked the court to strike Rudat’s testimony from the record because it was inadmissible hearsay. He denied this motion, but ruled it hearsay and speculative.

However, the content of Rudat’s testimony, as well as all other testimonies, became public and were published on Facebook. Those shed light on the backstory of this lawsuit, Rudat’s own role in bringing it and its relation to the investigation for former city manager David Rudat and a smear campaign his supporters mounted.

Case dismissed

A hearing on the motions for summary judgment took place last Friday.

Today the court issued a judgment that the city, and council members, indeed complied with the law and denied Valderrama’s claims of wrongdoing.

Valderrama has 30 days to file an appeal.

• King County Superior Court Summary judgment order