City of Lakewood v. Koenig
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the Court
¶1 David Koenig appeals the trial court’s order compelling discovery. He argues that an agency is not entitled to discovery under the Public Records Act (PRA), chapter 42.56 RCW, and that if an agency is entitled to discovery, the city of Lakewood’s (City) discovery was not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible relevant evidence. We hold that, although an agency is entitled to discovery under the PRA, the interrogatory and request for production at issue were not reasonably calcu*886lated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Finally, because Koenig did not…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Hearst Corp. v. HoppeWashington Supreme Court · 1978
- Riss v. AngelWashington Supreme Court · 1997
- Riss v. AngelWashington Supreme Court · 1997
- Spokane Research & Defense Fund v. City of SpokaneWashington Supreme Court · 2005
- SPOKANE RESEARCH FUND v. City of SpokaneWashington Supreme Court · 2005
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- City of Lakewood v. KoenigWashington Supreme Court · 2014
- DeLong v. ParmeleeCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011
- City of Lakewood v. KoenigCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013
- DeLONG v. ParmeleeCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011
- Kittitas Cnty. v. AllphinCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2018
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.