The state’s largest open government advocacy group has filed an amicus brief with the state Appeals Court in a Public Records Act lawsuit against the city of Langley.

South Whidbey resident Eric Hood, a frequent public records litigant, filed the original records request with the city in 2018 and filed the lawsuit in 2019. It is one of five lawsuits Hood has hit the city with over the years.

Hood had requested documents related to the city’s dismissal of the former police chief, who was investigated for alleged excessive use of force. Among the documents that the city provided Hood was a report by a consultant who claimed to be an expert on the use of force. The report referenced other documents that the city did not give to Hood.

Hood sued, claiming, among other things, that the city had a duty to provide the documents that the consultant relied on. The superior court judge sided with the city, concluding that Hood cited no authority for the proposition that the city has a duty to “follow obvious leads” in its search and provide records from an independent expert.

Hood filed a motion for reconsideration, which was rejected, and then an appeal with the state Court of Appeals. Hood’s attorney in the appeal in William Crittenden of Seattle.

The Washington Coalition for Open Government, or WashCOG, filed the brief in Appeals Court last month, arguing that the city’s argument in the case “would undermine the PRA as a functioning transparency tool” and that the group has an interest in assuring that the court upholds the core rulings in two previous cases. Specifically, they are Concerned Ratepayers v. Public Utility District and Cedar Grove v. City of Marysville.

“Cedar Grove is an essential, controlling case that closes a loophole which, if allowed, would permit agencies to evade the PRA by transferring the public’s business to outside consultants or simply by storing agency records outside the agency,” the Amicus brief states. “Likewise, Concerned Ratepayers assures that government agencies cannot interact with private contractors in a way that interferes with public scrutiny and oversight.”

The brief does not discuss how the city might obtain documents that are possessed by a consultant.

The city, represented by attorney Jessica Goldman, argued that the Appeals Court should not consider the amicus brief. In its objection, the city argued that WashCOG filed the brief outside of the 45-day period for responses in the case.

The city also argued that the amicus brief doesn’t add anything to the arguments, which have all already been made by Crittenden. The city points out that Crittenden is a board member of WashCOG.

“While WashCOG takes issue with the City of Langley’s briefing, WashCOG does not (and cannot) contend that its Board member Mr. Crittenden failed to adequately advance WashCOG’s arguments about the two cited cases,” the city argues.

On Aug. 7, the Court of Appeals granted WashCOG’s amicus brief but ruled that it would only accept a final response brief from the city by Sept. 6.