In July 2018, the Whidbey News-Times reported that the City of Langley, Washington, had fired Police Chief David Marks in connection with a use of force incident from November 2017. Later that month, Eric Hood submitted a Public Records Act (PRA) request to the City. His request stated:
“Please disclose any records related to the City’s decision to terminate Dave Marks. These would include but are not limited to any formal or informal complaints about Marks and any records requests referencing Marks. It would also include any internal communications among City employees, agents or elected officials related to Marks’ conduct or actions. It would also include any City communications with any outside agencies, persons or entities related to Marks’ conduct or actions.”
The City’s subsequent productions included an “Expert Use of Force Opinion” report prepared by Glen Carpenter, a third-party consultant whom the City had hired. Carpenter’s report contained a “Materials Reviewed” page listing numerous documents he considered. Hood later sued, alleging the City violated the PRA by failing to produce the documents underlying Carpenter’s report. The trial court granted the City’s motion for dismissal. Hood appealed.
On appeal, Hood argued that the City and the trial court improperly narrowed his request. He contended his request was a “broad request” for the “entire ‘universe’” of public records relating to the underlying use of force incident, not merely those about the termination decision.
The Court of Appeals rejected this interpretation, focusing on the “actual wording” of the request. The Court noted the PRA must be liberally construed and an agency cannot interpret a request more narrowly than its language, but the scope is determined by the request’s plain language, not the requester’s later rationalizations. The Court distinguished Hood’s case from Cantu v. Yakima School District, where a request expressly asked for “all reports” from “any” bullying incidents. In contrast, Hood’s request was explicitly qualified: it sought records “related to the City’s decision to terminate Dave Marks.” The listed examples — complaints, internal communications, outside communications — were all framed as being included within that overall request concerning the decision. “The plain language of Hood’s actual PRA request did not, as he claims, reference ‘all’ records… relating to the [2017 use of force] incident,” the Court held.
The Court then addressed whether the documents underlying Carpenter’s report fell within the properly construed scope. Hood argued these documents were relevant to the termination decision and should have been produced. The Court disagreed, relying on the City’s unrebutted evidence detailing the decision-making process. In a verified interrogatory answer, the City’s mayor stated the decision to terminate Marks was “exclusively within the authority of the Mayor” under the City’s form of government. The mayor “created the files and records concerning employment of Chief Marks and maintained the files concerning his potential termination” and “assembled responsive records into a binder/notebook that contained the records relevant to Marks’ employment situation.” The Court found this explanation unrebutted.
Hood pointed to emails between the mayor and Carpenter as evidence the underlying documents were connected to the decision. The Court found these emails immaterial, as they merely showed Carpenter gathering potential sources for his report and contained “no actual substantive discussion of these underlying documents by the mayor, or any other indication they were actually used for or relevant to ‘the City’s decision to terminate Dave Marks.’” The fact that the mayor may have “sent” documents to Carpenter was insufficient to establish they were used in the decision-making process.
Hood v. City of Langley, No. 86209- 0-I, 2025 WL 2828773 (Wash. Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2025) (unpublished).