By Miki Mullor
Editor

The Washington Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court ruling that the City of Sammamish did not violate the state’s Public Records Act (PRA) in handling requests from former Deputy Mayor and City Council member Ramiro Valderrama. The decision, issued on December 16, 2024, comes after a contentious legal battle that included accusations of bad faith and a $10 million settlement demand from Valderrama.

Background on the Lawsuit

Valderrama’s lawsuit centered on claims that city officials, including Council member Kent Treen, former Mayor Christie Malchow and former Council member Ken Gamblin, failed to disclose communications conducted through private messaging apps such as WhatsApp, Signal, and Telegram. His initial public records requests, filed in early 2022, sought messages exchanged between council members and citizens using these platforms.

Valderrama r alleged that the city did not adequately search for these records on personal devices, effectively withholding public information that should have been disclosed under the PRA. According to Valderrama, these failures represented a significant breach of transparency and accountability in local government.

In September 2023, Valderrama’s attorney demanded a $10 million settlement, attorneys’ fees and a public admission by the city that it had violated the PRA. The city, however, maintained that it had followed all legal requirements, offering $75,000 in an attempt to settle the case. Valderrama rejected the offer, escalating the dispute to the courts.

Court Findings

The court ultimately sided with the City of Sammamish, ruling that it had conducted a reasonable search for records in compliance with the PRA. The decision noted that the city had asked current and former council members to search their personal devices for potentially responsive records and submit affidavits describing their searches’ scope and results.

During the records request process, the city provided Valderrama with hundreds of documents and 43 affidavits from council members and staff. According to court documents, the city also maintained regular communication with Valderrama, updating him on the status of his requests and addressing his concerns.

The appellate court emphasized that while the PRA requires agencies to conduct adequate searches, it does not obligate them to take extraordinary measures, such as suing employees or conducting forensic examinations of personal devices, to fulfill public records requests. The court also acknowledged the balance between government transparency and individual privacy, particularly when personal devices are involved.

Allegations of Bad Faith

Valderrama had accused several council members of acting in bad faith during the records search process. For example, he claimed that Gamblin delayed responding to the city’s requests and failed to search all relevant messaging platforms. Similarly, he alleged that Malchow intentionally used encrypted messaging apps to conceal communications and later deleted records to avoid disclosure.

The court found no evidence to support these allegations. Gamblin’s affidavit described his efforts to search WhatsApp, Telegram, and Facebook Messenger for responsive records, and he certified that he had provided all relevant documents. Malchow, meanwhile, explained that she had deleted some records from her laptop because its storage disk was full but later recovered most of the deleted files and submitted them to the city.

Valderrama also questioned Treen’s actions, citing testimony from a city IT employee who claimed that Treen had asked for help “scrubbing” his phone. Treen denied the allegation, asserting that his request was related to retrieving information from a city-issued device rather than deleting data from his personal phone. The court concluded that this disputed fact was immaterial to the adequacy of the city’s search.

The $10 Million Settlement Demand

One of the more dramatic elements of the case was Valderrama’s demand for a $10 million settlement, which he made in September 2023. The demand included compensation for attorneys’ fees and a public admission of the city’s wrongdoing.

The city initially offered a $75,000 settlement, which Valderrama rejected. His attorney argued that the city’s handling of the public records requests had caused significant harm, warranting a higher settlement. However, the court’s ruling that the city had complied with the PRA effectively nullified Valderrama’s claim for damages.

Legal Costs and Political Implications

The city has spent more than $340,000 on legal defense in the case, excluding the time spent by city staff managing the records requests. Transcripts from depositions made public through a separate records request revealed a potential political dimension to the lawsuit. Specifically, the transcripts suggested that Valderrama’s case was linked to an investigation into former city manager David Rudat, raising questions about whether political motivations influenced the legal dispute.

Significance of the Ruling

The court noted that the city’s efforts were consistent with the PRA’s requirements and rejected Valderrama’s argument that more invasive measures were necessary. The ruling also reinforced the principle that agencies are not obligated to compromise employees’ privacy rights to fulfill public records requests.

This case underscores the challenges of balancing transparency with privacy in the digital age. As government officials increasingly use personal devices for work-related communication, disputes over access to these records will likely become more common. The court’s decision reaffirms that while agencies must reasonably comply with public records requests, they are not required to take extreme measures that infringe on personal privacy.

For the City of Sammamish, the ruling vindicates its public records process and resolves a costly and contentious legal battle. For Valderrama, it marks the latest chapter in a high-profile dispute that has drawn attention to issues of government accountability and the use of private communication platforms by public officials.

Valderrama may attempt to appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court. He has until mid-April 2024 to file his case.