title: Access to Administrative Records

text:
GR 31.1 ACCESS TO ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS GENERAL PRINCIPLES (a) Policy and Purpose. Consistent with the principles of open administration of justice as provided in article I, section 10 of the Washington State Constitution, it is the policy of the judiciary to facilitate access to administrative records. A presumption of access applies to the judiciary’s administrative records. Access to administrative records, however, is not absolute and shall be consistent with exemptions for personal privacy, restrictions in statutes, restrictions in court rules, and as required for the integrity of judicial decision-making. Access shall not unduly burden the business of the judiciary. (b) Overview of Public Access to Judicial Records. There are three categories of judicial records. (1) Case records are records that relate to in-court proceedings, including case files, dockets, calendars, and the like. Public access to these records is governed by GR 31, which refers to these records as “court records,” and not by this GR 31.1. Under GR 31, these records are presumptively open to public access, subject to stated exceptions. (2) Administrative records are records that relate to the management, supervision, or administration of a court or judicial agency. A more specific definition of “administrative records” is in section (i) of this rule. Under section (j) of this rule, administrative records are presumptively open to public access, subject to exceptions found in sections (j) and (l) of this rule. (3) Chambers records are records that are controlled and maintained by a judge’s chambers. A more specific definition of this term is in section (m) of this rule. Under section (m), chambers records are not open to public access. PROCEDURES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS (c) Procedures for Records Requests. (1) COURTS AND JUDICIAL AGENCIES TO ADOPT PROCEDURES. Each court and judicial agency must adopt a policy implementing this rule and setting forth its procedures for accepting and responding to administrative records requests. The policy must include the designation of a public records officer and shall require that requests from the identified individual or, if an entity, an identified entity representative, be submitted in writing to the designated public records officer. Best practices for handling administrative records requests shall be developed under the authority of the Board for Judicial Administration. COMMENT: When adopting policies and procedures, courts and judicial agencies will need to carefully consider many issues, including the extent to which judicial employees may use personally owned computers and other media devices to conduct official business and the extent to which the court or agency will rely on the individual employee to search their personally owned media devices for documents in response to a records request. For judicial officers and their chambers staff, documents on personal media devices may still qualify as chambers records, see section (m) of this rule.

(2) PUBLICATION OF PROCEDURES FOR REQUESTING ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS. Each court and judicial agency must prominently publish the procedures for requesting access to its administrative records. If the court or judicial agency has a web site, the procedures must be included there. The publication shall include the public records officer’s work mailing address, telephone number, fax number, and e-mail address. (3) INITIAL RESPONSE. Each court and judicial agency must initially respond to a written request for access to an administrative record within 5 working days of its receipt, but for courts that convene infrequently no more than 30 calendar days, from the date of its receipt. The response shall acknowledge receipt of the request and include a good faith estimate of the time needed to respond to the request. The estimate may be later revised, if necessary. For purposes of this rule, “working days” mean days that the court or judicial agency, including a part-time municipal court, is open. (4) COMMUNICATION WITH REQUESTER. Each court and judicial agency must communicate with the requester as necessary to clarify the records being requested. The court or judicial agency may also communicate with the requester in an effort to determine if the requester’s need would be better served with a response other than the one actually requested. (5) SUBSTANTIVE RESPONSE. Each court and judicial agency must respond to the substance of the records request within the time frame specified in the court’s or judicial agency’s initial response to the request. If the court or judicial agency is unable to fully comply in this time frame, then the court or judicial agency should comply to the extent practicable and provide a new good faith estimate for responding to the remainder of the request. If the court or judicial agency does not fully satisfy the records request in the manner requested, the court or judicial agency must justify in writing any deviation from the terms of the request. (6) EXTRAORDINARY REQUESTS LIMITED BY RESOURCE CONSTRAINTS. If a particular request is of a magnitude that the court or judicial agency cannot fully comply within a reasonable time due to constraints on the court’s or judicial agency’s time, resources, and personnel, the court or judicial agency shall communicate this information to the requester. The court or judicial agency must attempt to reach agreement with the requester as to narrowing the request to a more manageable scope and as to a time frame for the court’s or judicial agency’s response, which may include a schedule of installment responses. If the court or judicial agency and requester are unable to reach agreement, then the court or judicial agency shall respond to the extent practicable and inform the requester that the court or judicial agency has completed its response. (7) RECORDS REQUESTS THAT INVOLVE HARASSMENT, INTIMIDATION, THREATS TO SECURITY, OR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. A court or judicial agency may deny a records request if it determines that the request was made to harass or intimidate the court or judicial agency or its employees; fulfilling the request would likely threaten the security of the court or judicial agency; fulfilling the request would likely threaten the safety or security of judicial officers, staff, family members of judicial officers or staff, or any other person; or fulfilling the request may assist criminal activity. (d) Review of Records Decision. (1) NOTICE OF REVIEW PROCEDURES. The public records officer’s response to a public records request shall include a written summary of the procedures under which the requesting party may seek further review.

(2) DEADLINE FOR SEEKING INTERNAL REVIEW. A record requester’s petition under section (d)(3) seeking internal review of a public records officer’s decision must be submitted within 90 days of the public records officer’s decision. (3) INTERNAL REVIEW WITHIN COURT OR AGENCY. Each court and judicial agency shall provide a method for review by the judicial agency’s director, presiding judge, or judge designated by the presiding judge. For a judicial agency, the presiding judge shall be the presiding judge of the court that oversees the agency. The court or judicial agency may also establish intermediate levels of review. The court or judicial agency shall make publicly available the applicable forms. The review proceeding is informal and summary. The review proceeding shall be held within 5 working days, but for courts that convene infrequently no more than 30 calendar days, from the date the court or agency receives the request for review. If that is not reasonably possible, then within 5 working days the review shall be scheduled for the earliest practical date. (4) EXTERNAL REVIEW. Upon the exhaustion of remedies under section (d)(3), a record requester aggrieved by a court or agency decision may obtain further review by choosing between the two alternatives set forth in subsections (i) and (ii) of this section (d)(4). (i) REVIEW VIA CIVIL ACTION IN COURT. The requesting person may use a judicial writ of mandamus, prohibition, or certiorari to file a civil action in superior court challenging the records decision. COMMENT: Subsection (i) does not create any new judicial remedies, but merely recognizes existing procedures for initiating a civil action in court. (ii) INFORMAL REVIEW BY VISITING JUDGE OR OTHER OUTSIDE DECISION MAKER. The requesting person may seek informal review by a person outside the court or judicial agency. If the requesting person seeks review of a decision made by a court or made by a judicial agency that is directly reportable to a court, the outside review shall be by a visiting judicial officer. If the requesting person seeks review of a decision made by a judicial agency that is not directly reportable to a court, the outside review shall be by a person agreed upon by the requesting person and the judicial agency. In the event the requesting person and the judicial agency cannot agree upon a person, the presiding superior court judge in the county in which the judicial agency is located shall either conduct the review or appoint a person to conduct the review. The review proceeding shall be informal and summary. The decision resulting from the informal review proceeding may be further reviewed in superior court pursuant to a writ of mandamus, prohibition, or certiorari. Decisions made by a judge under this subsection (ii) are part of the judicial function. (iii) DEADLINE FOR SEEKING EXTERNAL REVIEW. A request for external review must be submitted within 30 days of the issuance of the court or judicial agency’s final decision under subsection (d)(3). (e) Monetary Awards Not Allowed. Attorney fees, costs, civil penalties, or fines may not be awarded under this rule. (f) Persons Who Are Subjects of Records. (1) Unless otherwise required or prohibited by law, a court or judicial agency has the option of notifying a person named in a record or to whom a record specifically pertains, that access to the record has been requested.

(2) A person who is named in a record, or to whom a record specifically pertains, may present information opposing the disclosure to the applicable decision maker under subsections (c) and (d). (3) If a court or judicial agency decides to allow access to a requested record, a person who is named in that record, or to whom the record specifically pertains, has a right to initiate review under subsections (d)(3)-(4) or to participate as a party to any review initiated by a requester under subsections (d)(3)-(4). If either the record subject or the record requester objects to informal review under subsection (d)(4)(ii), such alternative shall not be available. The deadlines that apply to a requester apply as well to a person who is a subject of a record. (g) Court and Judicial Agency Rules. Each court may from time to time make and amend local rules governing access to administrative records not inconsistent with this rule. Each judicial agency may from time to time make and amend agency rules governing access to its administrative records not inconsistent with this rule. (h) Charging of Fees. (1) A fee may not be charged to view administrative records, except the requester may be charged for research required to locate, obtain, or prepare the records at the rate set forth in section (h)(4). (2) A fee may be charged for the photocopying or scanning of administrative records. If another court rule or statute specifies the amount of the fee for a particular type of record, that rule or statute shall control. Otherwise, the amount of the fee may not exceed the amount that is authorized in the Public Records Act, chapter 42.56 RCW. (3) The court or judicial agency may require a deposit in an amount not to exceed the estimated cost of providing copies for a request. If a court or judicial agency makes a request available on a partial or installment basis, the court or judicial agency may charge for each part of the request as it is provided. If an installment of a records request is not claimed or reviewed within 30 days, the court or judicial agency is not obligated to fulfill the balance of the request. (4) A fee not to exceed $30 per hour may be charged for research and preparation services required to fulfill a request taking longer than one hour. The fee shall be assessed from the second hour onward. COMMENT: The authority to charge for research services is discretionary, allowing courts to balance the competing interests between recovering the costs of their response and ensuring the open administration of justice. The fee should not exceed the actual costs of response. (5) A court or judicial agency may require prepayment of fees. APPLICATION OF RULE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS This rule applies to all administrative records, regardless of the physical form of the record, the method of recording the record, or the method of storage of the record. (i) Definitions. (1) “Access” means the ability to view or obtain a copy of an administrative record.

(2) “Administrative record” means a public record created by or maintained by a court or judicial agency and related to the management, supervision, or administration of the court or judicial agency. COMMENT: The term “administrative record” does not include any of the following: (1) “court records” as defined in GR 31; (2) chambers records as set forth later in this rule; or (3) an attorney’s client files that would otherwise be covered by the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product privilege. (3) “Court record” is defined in GR 31. (4) “Judge” means a judicial officer as defined in the Code of Judicial Conduct (CJC) Application of the Code of Judicial Conduct subsection I(A). (5) “Public” includes an individual; partnership; joint venture; public or private corporation; association; federal, state, or local governmental entity or agency, however constituted; or any other organization or group of persons, however organized. (6) “Public record” includes any writing, except chambers records and court records, containing information relating to the conduct of government or the performance of any governmental or proprietary function prepared, owned, used, or retained by any court or judicial agency regardless of physical form or characteristics. “Public record” also includes metadata for electronic administrative records. COMMENT: See O’Neill v. City of Shoreline, 170 Wn.2d 138, 240 P.3d 1149 (2010) (defining “metadata”). (7) “Writing” means handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, and every other means of recording any form of communication or representation including, but not limited to, letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combination thereof, and all papers, maps, magnetic or paper tapes, photographic films and prints, motion picture, film and video recordings, magnetic or punched cards, discs, drums, diskettes, sound recordings, and other documents including existing data compilations from which information may be obtained or translated. COMMENT: E-mails and telephone records are included in this broad definition of “writing.” (j) Administrative Records--General Right of Access. Court and judicial agency administrative records are open to public access unless access is exempted or prohibited under this rule, other court rules, federal statutes, state statutes, court orders, or case law. To the extent that records access would be exempt or prohibited if the Public Records Act applied to the judiciary’s administrative records, access is also exempt or prohibited under this rule. To the extent that an ambiguity exists as to whether records access would be exempt or prohibited under this rule or other enumerated sources, responders and reviewing authorities shall be guided by the Public Records Act, chapter 42.56 RCW, in making interpretations under this rule. In addition, to the extent required to prevent a significant risk to individual privacy or safety interests, a court or judicial agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this rule when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each instance, the justification for the deletion shall be provided fully in writing.

(k) Entities Subject to Rule. (1) This rule applies to the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, the superior courts, the district and municipal courts, and the following judicial agencies: (i) All judicial organizations that are overseen by a court, including entities that are designated as agencies, departments, committees, boards, commissions, task forces, and similar groups; (ii) The Superior Court Judges’ Association, the District and Municipal Court Judges’ Association, and similar associations of judicial officers and employees; (iii) The Washington State Office of Civil Legal Aid and the Washington State Office of Public Defense; and (iv) All subgroups of the entities listed in this section (k)(1). COMMENT: The elected court clerks and their staff are not included in this rule because (1) they are covered by the Public Records Act and (2) they do not generally maintain the judiciary’s administrative records that are covered by this rule. (2) This rule does not apply to the Washington State Bar Association. Public access to the Bar Association’s records is governed by [a proposed General Rule 12.4, pending before the Supreme Court]. (3) A judicial officer is not a court or judicial agency. COMMENT: This provision protects judges and court commissioners from having to respond personally to public records requests. Records requests would instead go to the court’s public records officer. (4) An attorney or entity appointed by a court or judicial agency to provide legal representation to a litigant in a judicial or administrative proceeding does not become a judicial agency by virtue of that appointment. (5) A person or entity entrusted by a judicial officer, court, or judicial agency with the storage and maintenance of its public records, whether part of a judicial agency or a third party, is not a judicial agency. Such person or agency may not respond to a request for access to administrative records, absent express written authority from the court or judicial agency or separate authority in court rule to grant access to the documents. COMMENT: Judicial e-mails and other documents sometimes reside on IT servers; some are in off-site physical storage facilities. This provision prohibits an entity that operates the IT server from disclosing judicial records. The entity is merely a bailee, holding the records on behalf of a court or judicial agency, rather than an owner of the records having independent authority to release them. Similarly, if a court or judicial agency puts its paper records in storage with another entity, the other entity cannot disclose the records. In either instance, it is the court or judicial agency that needs to make the decision as to releasing the

records. The records request needs to be addressed by the court’s or judicial agency’s public records officer, not by the person or entity having control over the IT server or the storage area. On the other hand, if a court or judicial agency archives its records with the state archivist, relinquishing by contract its own authority as to disposition of the records, the archivist would have separate authority to disclose the records. Because of this rule’s broad definition of “public record,” this paragraph (6) would apply to electronic records, such as e-mails (and their metadata) and telephone records, among a wide range of other records. (l) Exemptions. In addition to exemptions referred to in section (j), the following categories of administrative records are exempt from public access: (1) Requests for judicial ethics opinions; (2) Minutes of meetings held exclusively among judges, along with any staff; COMMENT: Meeting minutes do not always contain information that needs to be withheld from public access. Courts have discretion whether to release meeting minutes, because an exemption from this rule merely means that a document is not required to be disclosed. Disclosure would be appropriate if the document does not contain information of a confidential, sensitive, or protected nature. Courts and judicial agencies are encouraged to carefully consider whether some, or all, of their meeting minutes should be open to public access. Adopting a local rule on this issue would assist the public in knowing which types of minutes are accessible and which are not. (3) Preliminary drafts, notes, recommendations, and intra-agency memorandums in which opinions are expressed or policies formulated or recommended are exempt under this rule, except that a specific record is not exempt when publicly cited by a court or agency in connection with any court or agency action. This exemption applies to a record only while a final decision is pending on the issue that is being addressed in that record; once the final decision has been made, the record is no longer covered by this exemption. For purposes of documents related to budget negotiations with a budgetary authority, the “final decision” is the decision by the budgetary authority to adopt the budget for that year or biennium. (4) Evaluations and recommendations concerning candidates seeking appointment or employment within a court or judicial agency; COMMENT: Paragraph (4) is intended to encompass documents such as those of the Supreme Court’s Capital Counsel Committee, which evaluates attorneys for potential inclusion on a list of attorneys who are specially qualified to represent clients in capital cases.

(5) Personal identifying information, including individuals’ home contact information, Social Security numbers, date of birth, driver’s license numbers, and identification/security photographs; (6) Documents related to an attorney’s request for a trial or appellate court defense expert, investigator, or other services, any report or findings submitted to the attorney or court or judicial agency by the expert, investigator, or other service provider, and the invoicing of the expert, investigator or other service provider during the pendency of the case in any court. Payment records are not exempt, provided that they do not include medical records, attorney work product, information protected by attorney-client privilege, information sealed by a court, or otherwise exempt information; (7) Documents, records, files, investigative notes and reports, including the complaint and the identity of the complainant, associated with a court’s or judicial agency's internal investigation of a complaint against the court or judicial agency or its contractors during the course of the investigation. The outcome of the court’s or judicial agency’s investigation is not exempt; (8) [Reserved.]; (9) Family court mediation files; (10) Juvenile court probation social files; (11) Those portions of records containing specific and unique vulnerability assessments or specific and unique emergency and escape response plans, the disclosure of which would have a substantial likelihood of threatening the security of a judicial facility or any individual’s safety; and (12) The following records of the Certified Professional Guardian Board: (i) Investigative records compiled by the Board as a result of an investigation conducted by the Board as part of the application process, while a disciplinary investigation is in process under the Board’s rules and regulations, or as a result of any other investigation conducted by the Board while an investigation is in process. Investigative records related to a grievance become open to public inspection once the investigation is completed. (ii) Deliberative records compiled by the Board or a panel or committee of the Board as part of a disciplinary process. (iii) A grievance shall be open to public access, along with any response to the grievance submitted by the professional guardian or agency, once the investigation into the grievance has been completed or once a decision has been made that no investigation will be conducted. The name of the professional guardian or agency shall not be redacted from the grievance. CHAMBERS RECORDS (m) Chambers Records. Chambers records are not administrative records and are not subject to disclosure. COMMENT: Access to chambers records could necessitate a judicial officer having to review all records to protect against disclosing case sensitive information or other information that would intrude on the

independence of judicial decision-making. This would effectively make the judicial officer a de facto public records officer and could greatly interfere with judicial functions. (1) “Chambers record” means any writing that is created by or maintained by any judicial officer or chambers staff, and is maintained under chambers control, whether directly related to an official judicial proceeding, the management of the court, or other chambers activities. “Chambers staff” means a judicial officer’s law clerk, a judicial officer’s administrative staff, and any other staff when providing support directly to the judicial officer at chambers. COMMENT: Some judicial employees, particularly in small jurisdictions, split their time between performing chambers duties and performing other court duties. An employee may be “chambers staff” as to certain functions, but not as to others. Whether certain records are subject to disclosure may depend on whether the employee was acting in a chambers staff function or an administrative staff function with respect to that record. Records may remain under chambers control even though they are stored elsewhere. For example, records relating to chambers activities that are stored on a judge’s personally owned or workplace-assigned computer, laptop computer, cell phone, and similar electronic devices would still be chambers records. As a further example, records that are stored for a judicial chambers on external servers would still be under chambers control to the same extent as if the records were stored directly within the chambers. However, records that are otherwise subject to disclosure should not be allowed to be moved into chambers control as a means of avoiding disclosure. (2) Court records and administrative records do not become chambers records merely because they are in the possession or custody of a judicial officer or chambers staff. COMMENT: Chambers records do not change in character by virtue of being accessible to another chambers. For example, a data base that is shared by multiple judges and their chambers staff is a “chambers record” for purposes of this rule, as long as the data base is only being used by judges and their chambers staff. IMPLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE (n) Best Practices. Best practice guidelines adopted by the Supreme Court may be relied upon in acting upon public requests for documents. (o) Effective Date of Rule. (1) This rule will go into effect on a future date to be determined by the Supreme Court based upon a recommendation from the Board for Judicial Administration. The rule will apply to records that are created on or after that date. COMMENT: A delayed effective date is being used to allow time for development of best practices, training, and implementation. The effective date will be added to the rule once it has been determined.

(2) Public access to records that are created before that date are to be analyzed according to other court rules, applicable statutes, and the common law balancing test. The Public Records Act, chapter 42.56 RCW, does not apply to judicial records, but it may be used for nonbinding guidance. [Adopted effective January 1, 2016. Amended effective January 1, 2023.]

citation: GR GR 31.1


doc_type: court-rule

jurisdiction: wa

title: Court Performance Audits

text: GR 32 Court Performance Audits Pursuant to the provision of chapter 2.56 RCW and to ensure that minimum service levels for the administration of justice are in place, the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) is directed to conduct performance audits of courts under the authority of the Supreme Court, in conformity with criteria and methods developed by the Board for Judicial Administration which have been approved by the Supreme Court. [Adopted effective March 30, 2004.]

license: public-domain-government-work

citation: GR GR 32

rule_set: GR

rule_number: GR 32


title: Requests for Accommodation by Persons with Disabilities

text:
GR 33 REQUESTS FOR ACCOMMODATION BY PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (a) Definitions. The following definitions shall apply under this rule: (1) “Accommodation” means measures to make each court service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, readily accessible to and usable by a person with a disability, and may include but is not limited to: (A) making reasonable modifications in policies, practices, and procedures; (B) furnishing, at no charge, auxiliary aids and services, including but not limited to equipment, devices, materials in alternative formats, qualified interpreters, or readers; and (C) as to otherwise unrepresented parties to the proceedings, representation by counsel, as appropriate or necessary to making each service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, readily accessible to and usable by a person with a disability. (2) “Person with a disability” means a person with a sensory, mental, or physical disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213), the Washington State Law Against Discrimination (ch. 49.60 RCW), or other similar local, state or federal laws. (b) Process for Requesting Accommodation. (1) Requests. Requests for aids, modifications, and services will be addressed promptly and in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213) and the Washington State Law Against Discrimination (ch. 49.60 RCW), with the objective of ensuring equal access to courts, court programs, and court proceedings. (2) Timing. Requests should be made in advance whenever possible, to better enable the court to address the needs of the individual. (3) Local Procedures Allowed. Local procedures not inconsistent with this rule are encouraged. Informal practices are appropriate when an accommodation is clearly needed and can be easily provided. (4) Procedure. An application requesting accommodation should be made on a form approved by the Administrative Office of the Courts and may be presented ex parte in writing, or orally and reduced to writing, to the presiding judge or officer of the court or their designee. (5) Content. The request shall include a description of the accommodation sought, along with a statement of the disability necessitating the accommodation. The court may require the person requesting accommodation to provide additional information about the qualifying disability to help assess the appropriate accommodation. Medical and other health information shall be submitted under a cover sheet created by the Administrative Office of the Courts for use by applicants designated “SEALED MEDICAL AND HEALTH INFORMATION” and such information shall be accessible only to the court and the person requesting accommodation unless otherwise expressly ordered. (c) Consideration and Decision. (1) Considerations. In determining whether to grant an accommodation and what accommodation to grant, the court shall:

(A) consider, but not be limited by, the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12231), chapter 49.60 RCW, and other similar local, state, and federal laws; (B) give primary consideration to the accommodation requested by the applicant; and (C) make its decision on an individual- and case-specific basis with due regard to the nature of the applicant’s disability and the feasibility of the requested accommodation. (2) Determination. A request for accommodation may be denied only if: (A) the person requesting application has failed to satisfy the substantive requirements of this rule; or (B) the court is unable to provide the requested accommodation on the date of the proceeding and the proceeding cannot be continued without significant prejudice to a party; or (C) permitting the applicant to participate in the proceedings with the requested accommodation would create a direct threat to the health or well being of the applicant or others. (D) the requested accommodation would create an undue financial or administrative burden for the court; or would fundamentally alter the nature of the court service, program, or activity under (i) or (ii): (i) An accommodation may be denied based on a fundamental alteration or undue burden only after considering all resources available for the funding and operation of the service, program, or activity, and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. (ii) If a fundamental alteration or undue burden would result from fulfilling the request, the court shall nevertheless ensure that, to the maximum extent possible, individuals with disabilities receive the benefits or services provided by the court. (d) Decision. The court shall, in writing or on the record, inform the person requesting an accommodation that the request for accommodation has been granted or denied, in whole or in part, and the nature and scope of the accommodation to be provided, if any. A written decision shall be entered in the proceedings file, if any, in which case the court shall determine whether or not the decision should be sealed. If there are no proceedings filed the decision shall be entered in the court’s administrative files, with the same determination about filing under seal. (e) Denial. If a requested accommodation is denied, the court shall specify the reasons for the denial (including the reasons the proceeding cannot be continued without prejudice to a party). The court shall also ensure the person requesting the accommodation is informed of their right to file a complaint under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 with the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. Comments [1] Access to justice for all persons is a fundamental right. It is the policy of the courts of this state to assure that persons with disabilities have equal and meaningful access to the judicial system. Nothing in this rule shall be construed to limit or invalidate the remedies, rights, and procedures accorded to any person with a disability under local, state, or federal law. [2] Supplemental informal procedures for handling accommodation requests may be less onerous for both applicants and court administration. Courts are strongly encouraged to adopt an informal grievance process for public applicants whose requested accommodation is denied.

[Adopted effective September 1, 2007; Amended effective December 28, 2010; September 1, 2014; January 1, 2023.]

citation: GR GR 33

rule_number: GR 33


title: Waiver of Court and Clerk's Fees and Charges in Civil Matters on the Basis of Indigency

text:
GR 34 WAIVER OF COURT AND CLERK’S FEES AND CHARGES IN CIVIL MATTERS ON THE BASIS OF INDIGENCY (a) Any individual, on the basis of indigent status as defined herein, may seek a waiver of filing fees or surcharges the payment of which is a condition precedent to a litigant’s ability to secure access to judicial relief from a judicial officer in the applicable trial court. (1) The application for such a waiver may be made ex parte in writing or orally, accompanied by a mandatory pattern form created by the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) whereby the applicant attests to their financial status or, in the case of an individual represented by a qualified legal services provider (QLSP) or an attorney working in conjunction with a QLSP, a declaration of counsel stating that the individual was screened and found eligible by the QLSP. (2) The court shall accept an application submitted in person, by mail, and, where authorized by local court rule not inconsistent with GR 30, electronic filing. The process for presentation of the application shall conform to local court rules and clerk processes not inconsistent with the rules of this court for presenting ex parte orders to the court directly or via the clerk. All applications shall be presented to a judicial officer for consideration in a timely manner and in conformity with the local court’s established procedures. There shall be no locally imposed fee for making an application. The applicant or applicant’s attorney filing by mail, shall provide the court with a self-addressed stamped envelope for timely return of a conformed copy of the order. Comment This rule establishes the process by which judicial officers may waive civil filing fees and surcharges for which judicial officers have authority to grant a waiver. This rule applies to mandatory fees and surcharges that have been lawfully established, the payment of which is a condition precedent to a litigant’s ability to secure access to judicial relief. These include but are not limited to legislatively established filing fees and surcharges (e.g., RCW 36.18.020(5)); other initial filing charges required by statute (e.g., family court facilitator surcharges established pursuant to RCW 26.12.240; family court service charges established pursuant to RCW 26.12.260; domestic violence prevention surcharges established pursuant to RCW 36.18.016(2)(b)); and other lawfully established fees and surcharges which must be paid as a condition of securing access to judicial relief. (3) An individual who is not represented by a qualified legal services provider (as that term is defined below) or an attorney working in conjunction with a qualified legal services provider shall be determined to be indigent within the meaning of this rule if such person, on the basis of the information presented, establishes that: (A) they are currently receiving assistance under a needs-based, means-tested assistance program such as the following: (i) Federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF); (ii) State-provided general assistance for unemployable individuals (GA-U or GA-X); (iii) Federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI); (iv) Federal poverty-related veteran’s benefits; or (v) Food Stamp Program (FSP); or

(B) their household income is at or below 125 percent of the federal poverty guideline; or (C) their household income is above 125 percent of the federal poverty guideline and the applicant has recurring basic living expenses (as defined in RCW 10.101.010(4)(d)) that render them without the financial ability to pay the filing fees and other fees or surcharges for which a request for waiver is made; or (D) other compelling circumstances exist that demonstrate an applicant’s inability to pay fees and/or surcharges. (4) An individual represented by a QLSP, or an attorney working in conjunction with a QLSP that has screened and found the individual eligible for services, is presumptively deemed indigent when a declaration from counsel verifies representation and states that the individual was screened and found eligible for services. (5) As used in this rule, “qualified legal services provider” means those legal services providers that meet the definition of APR 1(e)(8). Comment The adoption of this rule is rooted in the constitutional premise that every level of court has the inherent authority to waive payment of filing fees and surcharges on a case by case basis. Each court is responsible for the proper and impartial administration of justice which includes ensuring that meaningful access to judicial review is available to the poor as well as to those who can afford to pay. (b) Nothing in this rule shall prohibit or delay action on the underlying petition upon the court’s approval of a waiver and presentation of an original petition may accompany the initial fee waiver. [Adopted effective December 28, 2010; Amended effective April 21, 2020; January 1, 2023.]

citation: GR GR 34

rule_number: GR 34


title: Official Certified Superior Court Transcripts

text:
GR 35 OFFICIAL CERTIFIED SUPERIOR COURT TRANSCRIPTS (a) Definitions. (1) “Authorized transcriptionist” means a person approved by a Superior Court to prepare an official verbatim report of proceedings of an electronically recorded court proceeding in that court. (2) “Certified court reporter” means a person who meets the standards outlined in RCW 18.145.080. (3) “Mentorship” means a professional relationship between an experienced, authorized transcriptionist or a certified court reporter and another transcriptionist for the purpose of providing guidance, encouragement, and professional advice. (b) Official court transcripts may be completed and filed by (1) an official court reporter employed by the court or other certified court reporter; or (2) a court employee with job responsibilities to transcribe a report of proceedings; or (3) an authorized transcriptionist who has been approved by the jurisdiction conducting the hearing to be transcribed. (c) Each court will determine who has the authority to approve transcriptionists for that jurisdiction. (d) Except as otherwise ordered by the court the minimum qualification to become an authorized transcriptionist in order to complete and file an official certified court transcript from electronically recorded proceedings is certification as a court reporter or certification by AAERT (American Association of Electronic Reporters and Transcribers) or proof of one year of supervised mentorship with a certified court reporter or an authorized transcriptionist. Courts may require additional qualifications at their discretion. (e) The certified court reporter or authorized transcriptionist shall attach to the official transcript filed with the court a certificate in substantially the following form: I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the following is true and correct: 1. That I am a certified court reporter (or authorized transcriptionist); 2. I received the electronic recording directly from the trial court conducting the hearing; 3. This transcript is a true and correct record of the proceedings to the best of my ability, including any changes made by the trial judge reviewing the transcript; 4. I am in no way related to or employed by any party in this matter, nor any counsel in the matter; and 5. I have no financial interest in the outcome or end result of the litigation.

(Date and Place)

(Signature)

[Adopted effective September 1, 2015; Amended effective September 1, 2018.]

citation: GR GR 35

rule_number: GR 35


title: Trial Court Security

text:
GR 36 TRIAL COURT SECURITY (a) Purpose. A safe courthouse environment is fundamental to the administration of justice. Employees, case participants, and members of the public should expect safe and secure courthouses. This rule is intended to encourage incident reporting and well-coordinated efforts to provide basic security and safety measures in Washington courts. (b) Definition. “Incident” is defined as a threat to or assault against the court community, including court personnel, litigants, attorneys, witnesses, jurors, or others using the courthouse. It also includes any event or threatening situation that disrupts the court or compromises the safety of the court community. (c) Incident Reports. (1) Reporting Method. (i) The court should make a record of each incident as soon as practicable, but no later than two days after the incident. The report shall be kept on file by the local court administrator. (ii) The court shall report all incidents electronically to the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) on the AOC Threat/Incident Report Form within one week of the incident. (d) Court Security Committee. (1) Role. Each trial court should form a Court Security Committee to coordinate the adoption of court security policies and make recommendations regarding security protocols, policies, and procedures necessary to protect the public, court personnel and users, and court facilities. The Court Security Committee should adopt a Court Security Plan and thereafter revise the plan as may be necessary. (2) Committee Composition. The Presiding Judge for each court should convene a Court Security Committee meeting and invite representatives from the following: (i) judiciary; (ii) court clerical staff; (iii) prosecuting authority’s office; (iv) public defender’s office; (v) executive branch; (vi) law enforcement; (vii) facilities/maintenance department; (viii) any other agency of government housed in the same building; (ix) any other person the presiding judge deems appropriate.

(e) Court Security Plan. Each Court Security Committee should create a Court Security Plan for each courthouse location. If a Court Security Plan is adopted; the Court Administrator shall keep the Plan on file and accessible to the court community. The Court Security Plan should be in writing and should address: (1) routine security operations, including security screening for persons entering the court facility, secure storage of weapons not permitted in the courthouse, parking, landscaping, interior and exterior lighting, interior and exterior doors, intrusion and detection alarms, window security, protocol for building access for first responders, and provision of building floor plans for first responders. (2) written or oral threats or declarations of intent to inflict pain or injury upon anyone in the court community; (3) physical layout of court facility and escape routes; (4) threats--in court or by other means (telephone, e-mail, website, etc.); (5) bomb threat; (6) hostage situation; (7) weapons in the court facility; (8) active shooter (9) escaped prisoner; (10) high risk trial plan; (11) routine security operations; (12) Threat and security incident response techniques in and around the court facility, which may include how to defuse situations and remain calm during an incident; (13) Personal safety techniques in and around the court facility; (14) Irate and abusive individuals. (f) Security Drills. Each court may hold security drills as determined by the Court Security Committee, as deemed necessary by the Presiding Judge in consultation with other authorities in the courthouse. Drills should include all court personnel, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement, and other regular court users. (g) Minimum Court Security Standards. Every court shall endeavor to meet or exceed the following minimum standards. Should the court fail to meet the minimum court security standards, the court should state in the Court Security Plan why the minimum standards were not met. (1) Policy and Procedure Guide for all Court and Clerk Personnel. Trial courts shall develop a Court Security Policy and Procedure Guide, using as examples the guides from Spokane County and Seattle Municipal Court, which guides are available from the AOC.

(2) Weapons Screening by Uniformed Security Personnel at all Public Entrances. Uniformed security personnel shall perform weapons screening at all public entrances, using, as a minimum, metal-detector wand screening and physical examination of bags, briefcases, packages, etc. (3) Security Audits Every Three Years. Trial courts shall conduct a security audit at least every three years. Updates to the Court Security Policy and Procedure Guide shall be disseminated to all court and clerk personnel. (4) Security Cameras Recording with Loops of at Least Seven days, with Signage That Recording Is Taking Place. Security cameras shall be placed at strategic locations as determined by the Court Security Committee, with signs posted nearby advising that recording is taking place. Security camera footage shall be retained for at least 7 days. (5) Duress Alarms at Multiple Strategic Locations, Such as Clerk’s Office, Administration, and Courtrooms, with Broadcasting to the Nearest Law Enforcement Agency with Jurisdiction over the Court Site. Easily accessible and discreetly placed duress alarms shall be located at multiple strategic locations as determined by the Court Security Committee. The duress alarm shall broadcast to the law enforcement agency that has jurisdiction to respond to the site and that is closest to the site. (6) Emergency Notification Broadcast System in Place, with Standardized Color Coding, and All Personnel Trained on the System. An emergency notification broadcast system shall be established with standardized color coding denoting the level of emergency. All court and clerk personnel shall be trained on use of the system. (7) Active Shooter Training for All Court and Clerk Personnel. Active shooter training shall be delivered to all court and clerk personnel. [Adopted effective September 1, 2017.]

citation: GR GR 36

rule_number: GR 36


title: Jury Selection

text:
GR 37 JURY SELECTION (a) Policy and Purpose. The purpose of this rule is to eliminate the unfair exclusion of potential jurors based on race or ethnicity. (b) Scope. This rule applies in all jury trials. (c) Objection. A party may object to the use of a peremptory challenge to raise the issue of improper bias. The court may also raise this objection on its own. The objection shall be made by simple citation to this rule, and any further discussion shall be conducted outside the presence of the panel. The objection must be made before the potential juror is excused, unless new information is discovered. (d) Response. Upon objection to the exercise of a peremptory challenge pursuant to this rule, the party exercising the peremptory challenge shall articulate the reasons the peremptory challenge has been exercised. (e) Determination. The court shall then evaluate the reasons given to justify the peremptory challenge in light of the totality of circumstances. If the court determines that an objective observer could view race or ethnicity as a factor in the use of the peremptory challenge, then the peremptory challenge shall be denied. The court need not find purposeful discrimination to deny the peremptory challenge. The court should explain its ruling on the record. (f) Nature of Observer. For purposes of this rule, an objective observer is aware that implicit, institutional, and unconscious biases, in addition to purposeful discrimination, have resulted in the unfair exclusion of potential jurors in Washington State. (g) Circumstances Considered. In making its determination, the circumstances the court should consider include, but are not limited to, the following: (i) the number and types of questions posed to the prospective juror, which may include consideration of whether the party exercising the peremptory challenge failed to question the prospective juror about the alleged concern or the types of questions asked about it; (ii) whether the party exercising the peremptory challenge asked significantly more questions or different questions of the potential juror against whom the peremptory challenge was used in contrast to other jurors; (iii) whether other prospective jurors provided similar answers but were not the subject of a peremptory challenge by that party; (iv) whether a reason might be disproportionately associated with a race or ethnicity; and (v) whether the party has used peremptory challenges disproportionately against a given race or ethnicity, in the present case or in past cases. (h) Reasons Presumptively Invalid. Because historically the following reasons for peremptory challenges have been associated with improper discrimination in jury selection in Washington State, the following are presumptively invalid reasons for a peremptory challenge: (i) having prior contact with law enforcement officers; (ii) expressing a distrust of law enforcement or a belief that law enforcement officers engage in racial profiling;

(iii) having a close relationship with people who have been stopped, arrested, or convicted of a crime; (iv) living in a high-crime neighborhood; (v) having a child outside of marriage; (vi) receiving state benefits; and (vii) not being a native English speaker. (i) Reliance on Conduct. The following reasons for peremptory challenges also have historically been associated with improper discrimination in jury selection in Washington State: allegations that the prospective juror was sleeping, inattentive, or staring or failing to make eye contact; exhibited a problematic attitude, body language, or demeanor; or provided unintelligent or confused answers. If any party intends to offer one of these reasons or a similar reason as the justification for a peremptory challenge, that party must provide reasonable notice to the court and the other parties so the behavior can be verified and addressed in a timely manner. A lack of corroboration by the judge or opposing counsel verifying the behavior shall invalidate the given reason for the peremptory challenge. [Adopted effective April 24, 2018.]

citation: GR GR 37

rule_number: GR 37


title: Open Access to Courts

text:
GR 38 OPEN ACCESS TO COURTS (a)

Prohibition on Civil Arrests.

(1) No person shall be subject to civil arrest without a judicial arrest warrant or judicial order for arrest while the person is inside a court of law of this state in connection with a judicial proceeding or other business with the court. (2) No person shall be subject to civil arrest without a judicial arrest warrant or judicial order for arrest while traveling to a court of law of this state for the purpose of participating in any judicial proceeding, accessing services or conducting other business with the court, or while traveling to return home or to employment after participating in any judicial proceeding, accessing services or conducting business with the court. (b)

Definitions.

(1) “Business with the court and accessing court services” includes, but is not limited to, doing business with, responding to, or seeking information, licensing, certification, notarization, or other services, from the office of the court clerk, financial/collections clerk, judicial administrator, courthouse facilitator, family law facilitator, court interpreter, and other court and clerk employees. (2) “Court of law” means any building or space occupied or used by a court of this state and adjacent property, including but not limited to adjacent sidewalks, all parking areas, grassy areas, plazas, court-related offices, commercial spaces within buildings or spaces occupied or used by a court of this state, and entrances to and exits from said buildings or spaces. (3) “Court order” and “judicial order” and “judicial warrant” include only those warrants and orders signed by a judge or magistrate authorized under Article I and Article III of the United States Constitution or Article IV of the Washington Constitution or otherwise authorized under the Revised Code of Washington. Such warrants and orders do not include civil immigration warrants or other administrative orders, warrants, or subpoenas that are not signed by a judge or magistrate as defined in this section. “Civil immigration warrant” means any warrant for a violation of federal civil immigration law issued by a federal immigration authority and includes, but is not limited to, administrative warrants issued on forms I-200 or I-203, or their successors, and civil immigration warrants entered in the National Crime Information Center database. (4) “Participating in a judicial proceeding” includes, but is not limited to, participating as a party, witness, interpreter, attorney, or lay advocate. (5) “Subject to civil arrest” includes, but is not limited to, stopping, detaining, holding, questioning, interrogating, arresting or delaying individuals by state or federal law enforcement officials or agents acting in their official capacity. (c) Enforcement. Washington courts may issue writs or other court orders necessary to enforce this court rule. Unless otherwise ordered, the civil arrest prohibition extends to within one mile of a court of law. In an individual case, the court may issue a writ or other order setting forth conditions to address circumstances specific to an individual or other relevant entity. [Adopted effective April 21, 2020.]

citation: GR GR 38

rule_number: GR 38