A Western Washington man who recently received a $10,000 settlement from the City of Pullman has filed a similar public records lawsuit against the City of Tekoa over a 2019 audit-related request.
Acting as his own attorney, Eric Hood, of Langley, Wash., has filed more than 30 lawsuits against public agencies in recent years over Public Records Act or open government compliance issues. Pullman paid Hood $10,000 in late December to resolve a previous claim.
Hood filed his complaint against Tekoa on April 27, alleging the city had failed to provide a complete response to his public records request in April 2019 for documents related to a recent state audit report. Hood wrote he requested any records the auditor’s office provided the city as part of the audit.
The complaint alleges Tekoa failed to respond within the legally required five business days. The city clerk then emailed Hood a copy of a recent 48-page audit report, asked if he wanted more, then never provided any other records.
“The City’s response showed it understood or was capable of understanding before Hood filed this complaint that his records request encompassed records in addition to the records it produced him,” he alleged. “The audit report produced to Hood by the City indicates the City withholds records responsive to Hood’s request for records.”
The Tekoa audit report references a separate management letter previously provided to city officials with additional details of the auditor’s findings. This letter does not appear to have been provided as part of the city’s response.
Hood’s previous lawsuit against the City of Pullman followed a similar request for state auditor records sent to the city. The audit report in that case also noted a separate management letter that was omitted from the response to Hood’s request for such records. City officials later provided the letter as part of the settlement agreement.
After the Tekoa clerk provided the audit report in May 2019, Hood asked if she would be sending anything else. Hood’s lawsuit quotes the following email exchange from May 3, 2019.
“This is what we got from our audit,” the clerk replied via email, “so does this satisfy your request?”
“Please see my request,” Hood reportedly responded.
“Got it,” the clerk answered.
Attorneys for the city argued in a legal answer filed Thursday that officials interpreted Hood’s request as asking for a copy of the audit report and Hood “did not identify any other existing record that was being requested.”
“Defendant City of Tekoa states that it reasonably understood [Hood’s] request and that it reasonably interpreted,” the city’s answer states, “and reasonably inquired as to whether the records produced satisfied [his] request, to which it received no clarification or identification of additional documents that were subject of the request.”
The city’s answer states it did not provide a list of any disclosure exemptions or redactions because no identifiable records were withheld. The answer does not address the management letter or describe whether city officials searched for any records beyond the audit report.
It acknowledges no further contact with Hood about his request.
“Plaintiff’s action is frivolous, in bad faith and commenced for improper purposes,” the city argues in its answer.
Hood’s complaint asks the court to order the city to provide any outstanding documents responsive to his request. He is also seeking attorney fees and a monetary penalty against the city for each day his request went unfulfilled.
No hearing has yet been scheduled.
If you would like to learn more about how you can submit requests for public records, check out our Citizen Guide on Public Records. It includes a brief overview of records law, tips for submission and links to local resources.