What could be the final decision in a lawsuit alleging public records violations favors the defendants, the city of Shoreline and its deputy mayor.
A Jan. 9 order denies the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and further clarifies that the lawsuit has been dismissed, which was previously a difference of opinion between parties.
“This is troubling, to say the least,” said plaintiff attorney Michele Earl-Hubbard, who represents Beth and Doug O’Neill.
The order “stands alone as one of the most unusual rulings” she’s seen, said Earl-Hubbard, who has handled open records violation cases for more than a decade.
Previously, the parties differed in opinion regarding whether the lawsuit was dismissed after an order was issued by Judge Bruce Hilyer on Dec. 5, 2006. The confusion resulted because although the assistant city attorney did not file a separate motion to dismiss the lawsuit, the order stated “this action is dismissed with costs awarded to defendants.”
The most recent order supports the original order, which dismissed the case, said assistant city attorney Flannary Collins, who represents the defendants in the lawsuit, the city of Shoreline and deputy mayor Maggie Fimia.
The order not only denies the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, but also imposes costs against them in favor of defendants. It also denies a motion to show cause and a motion to lodge public records and prepare an index of destroyed and withheld documents.
The defendant’s attorney has since withdrawn the request that the O’Neills pay statutory attorney fees, which Earl-Hubbard originally said “was unheard of.”
“We are not going to pursue the statutory attorney fees,” said Collins, who clarified that statutory attorney fees are $200.
The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 21, 2006, by the O’Neills, of Shoreline. The lawsuit alleges that Fimia and city staff failed to comply with public disclosure requests and that Fimia destroyed an e-mail requested by O’Neill.
In the order, Hilyer included some handwritten comments. He indicated that no existing public records subject to disclosure are being withheld by the city, no past violations of the Public Records Act have been proven and a “show cause” hearing was not necessary to adjudicate the case.
“He dismissed the lawsuit without a hearing and didn’t give them the time of day,” said Earl-Hubbard. “The O’Neills haven’t decided yet if they will appeal.”
The plaintiffs have 30 days to decide if they will appeal Hilyer’s decision, she said.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.