Email Redaction Log

From email search term A Penny Tale:

Email between Chief Kevin Milosevich and Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, dated 10/24/2011, subject line RE: draft exhibit list:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controvers y to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, and Commander Kent Curry, dated 10/24/2011, subject line attorney client privilege:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the con sent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment.

RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email between Commander Kent Curry and Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, dated 10/25/11, subject line: RE: attorney client privilege.
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

From email search term fuddlesticks :

Email string between Senior Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes and Attorney Richard B. Jolley, who represents the City on a matter, dated from 10/03/2011 at 5:08 p.m. to 10/04/2011 at 1:14 p.m., subject line Attorney Client privileged:

ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

From email search term SCORE Parody:

Email string between Senior Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes and Commander Katie McClincy dated between 10/12/2011 at 7:29 a.m. and 10/12/2011 at 8:56 a.m. (and includes Mr. Dougans Public Disclosure request of 10/7/2011 to Mayor Law and Commander McClincy, forwarded to City Attorney Larry Warren, forwarded to Senior Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes, and forwarded to Commander McClincy), subject line FW: Public Disclosure Request:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosu re under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professio nal employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of

specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Chief Kevin Milosevich and Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, dated between 10/23/2011 at 8:39 p.m. and 10/24/2011 at 8:44 a.m., subject line draft exhibit list:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exemp t from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, and Commander Clark Wilcox, dated between 10/24/2011 at 9:07 a.m. and 10/24/2011 at 3:24 p.m., subject line Attorney client privilege:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations:

RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Chief Kevin Milosevich and Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, dated between 04/27/2011 at 9:37 a.m. and 04/27/2011 at 5:21 p.m., subject line YouTube Videos:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

From email search term parody:

Email string between Chief Kevin Milosevich at Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, dated between 10/23/2011 at 8:39 p.m. and 10/24/2011 at 8:44 a.m., subject line draft exhibit list:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, and Commander Clark Wilcox, dated between 10/24/2011 at 9:07 a.m. and 10/24/2011 at 3:24 p.m., subject line Attorney client privilege:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment.

RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Senior Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes and Attorney Richard B. Jolley, who represents the City on a matter, dated from 10/03/2011 at 3:08 p.m. to 10/04/2011 at 1:14 p.m., subject line Attorney Client privileged:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency i s a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rule s, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

From email search term demotion:

Email string between HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson and Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, dated between 05/03/2011 at 4:23 p.m. and 05/05/2011 at 10:01 a.m. Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, Chief Kevin Milosevich, and HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson, dated between 05/31/2011 at 4:34 p.m. and 06/01/2011 at 6:14 a.m., subject line Draft:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with publish ed rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between HR Manager Cathryn Laird, Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, and HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson, dated between 06/17/2011 at 8:00 a.m. and 06/17/2011 at 12:50 p.m., subject line Griffith-Termination Memo:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this ch apter.

RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Chief Kevin Milosevich, HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson, HR Manager Cathryn Laird, and Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City in a matter, dated between 07/01/2011 at 11:50 a.m. and 07/01/2011 at 12:53 p.m., subject line Upon further review:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writ ing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, Chief Kevin Milosevich, HR/RM director Nancy Carlson, and HR Manager Cathryn Laird, dated between 06/30/2011 at 3:42 p.m. and 07/05/2011 at 10:51 a.m., subject line Marsalisi Final Discipline:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available f or public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Chief Kevin Milosevich, HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson, and Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, dated between 08/08/2011 at 11:33 a.m. and 08/08/2011 at 2:20 p.m., subject line Judds Discipline:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a contro versy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of

specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between HR Manager Cathryn Laird, Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, and HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson, dated between 06/17/2011 at 8:00 a.m. and 06/17/2011 at 12:49 p.m., subject line Griffith-Termination Memo:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Chief Kevin Milosevich, Commander Floyd Eldridge, Deputy Chief Timothy Troxel, and HR Analyst Brian Sandler, dated between 07/20/2011 at 8:52 a.m. and 08/29/2011 at 3:30 p.m., subject line Promotional Exam announcement change:
TEST QUESTIONS, SCORING KEYS, DATA FOR EMPLOYMENT & ACADEMIC EXAMS These records contain test questions, scoring keys, and/or other examination data used to administer a license,

employment or academic examination, protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citation: RCW 42.56.250(1) Test questions, scoring keys, and other examination data used to administer a license, employment, or academic examination

Email string between Chief Kevin Milosevich, Commander Floyd Eldridge, and HR Analyst Brian Sandler, dated between 09/23/2011 at 8:15 a.m. and 09/23/2011 at 1:16 p.m., subject line written exam question:
TEST QUESTIONS, SCORING KEYS, DATA FOR EMPLOYMENT & ACADEMIC EXAMS These records contain test questions, scoring keys, and/or other examination data used to administer a license, employment or academic examination, protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citation: RCW 42.56.250(1) Test questions, scoring keys, and other examination data used to administer a license, employment, or academic examination

Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City in a matter, Chief Kevin Milosevich, HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson, Commander Katie McClincy, and Attorney Alexander Higgins, dated between 10/18/2011 at 11:00 a.m. and 07/19/2011 at 7:35 a.m., subject line Second RPA (sic) Request:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this cha pter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson and Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City in a matter, dated between 10/21/2011 at 4:18 p.m. and 10/22/2011 at 8:43 a.m., subject line redacted:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, Chief Kevin Milosevich, HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson, and Attorney Alexander Higgins, dated between 10/21/2011 at 9:42 a.m. and 10/24/2011 at 8:16 a.m., subject line Elements of Settlement:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment.

RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explai ned fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City in a matter, and Commander Kent M. Curry, dated 10/24/2011 at 9:32 a.m., subject line attorney client privilege:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writi ng. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City in a matter, and Commander Katie McClincy, dated 10/24/2011 at 9:35 a.m., subject line Attorney client privilege:

ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the city in a matter, HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson, Chief Kevin Milosevich, and Attorney Alexander Higgins, dated between 10/21/2011 at 11:13 a.m. and 10/24/2011 at 9:59 a.m., subject line Elements of Settlement:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing.

Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City in a matter, and Commander Katie McClincy, dated between 10/24/2011 at 10:00 a.m. and 10/24/2011 at 11:01 a.m., subject line Attorney client privilege:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make availab le for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the city in a matter, HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson, Chief Kevin Milosevich, Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington, and Attorney Alexander Higgins, dated between 10/21/2011 at 11:13 a.m. and 10/24/2011 at 2:01 p.m., subject line Elements of Settlement:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter.

RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City in a matter, HR/RM Director Nancy Carlson, Chief Kevin Milosevich, Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington, and Attorney Alexander Higgins, dated between 10/25/2011 at 10:32 a.m. and 10/25/2011 at 1:42 pm, subject line Marsalisi settlement language:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but whic h records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City in a matter, and Commander Kent M. Curry, dated between 10/24/2011 at 10:33 a.m. and 10/25/2011 at 2:51 p.m., subject line attorney client privilege:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with publish ed rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Attorney Alexander Higgins, Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City in a matter, HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson, and Chief Kevin Milosevich, dated between 10/25/2011 at 10:35 a.m. and 10/25/2011 at 17:39 p.m., subject line Marsalisi settlement language:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exemp t from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of

specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email and attachments between HR Manager Cathryn Laird and Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, dated 08/31/2011 at 4:34 p.m., subject line redacted:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure unde r this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional emp loyment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

From email search term YouTube :

Email string between Daniel C Figaro, Shirley Rickman, Bryan Elliott, Jon M Schuldt, Scott Barfield, Kelly Matsukawa, Paul Stratford, Tracy L Wilkinson, Robert P Onishi, Peter W Kordel, Steven D. Morris, Thaddeus Kerkhoff, Quint Tibeau, dated between 08/31/2011 at 5:03 p.m. and 09/06/2011 at 3:52 p.m., subject line Intel Highland autothefts / car prowls / ** use caution **:

ACTIVE INVESTIGATIONS These records contain information regarding an active investigation the non-disclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement, and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations. See also Newman v. King County, 133 Wn.2d 565, 947 P.2d 712 (1997) and Cowles Publishing Co. v. Spokane Policy Department, 139 Wn.2d 472 987 P.2d 620 (1999). RCW 42.56.240(1) Specific intelligence information and specific investigative records compiled by investigative, law enforcement, and penology agencies, and state agencies vested with the responsibility to discipline members of any profession, the nondisclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement or for the protection of any persons right to privacy. VEHICLE OWNER INFORMATION These records contain the name and address of the registered owner of a vehicle, which shall not be released under RCW 46.12.635. RECORDS RELATING TO COMMISSION OF JUVENILE OFFENSES These records contain information relating to juveniles and juvenile offenses, which shall not be released under RCW 13.50.050.

Email string between Scott Barfield, Cyndie L Parks, Thaddeus Kerkhoff, Carlene BalcombBartok, Shirley Rickman, Mark R Gropper, Sheila Hatch, dated between 09/01/2011 at 12:41 p.m. and 09/19/2011 at 2:32 p.m., subject line Renton Highlands Rollin 60s Crip Gang:
ACTIVE INVESTIGATIONS These records contain information regarding an active investigation the non-disclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement, and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations. See also Newman v. King County, 133 Wn.2d 565, 947 P.2d 712 (1997) and Cowles Publishing Co. v. Spokane Policy Department, 139 Wn.2d 472 987 P.2d 620 (1999). RCW 42.56.240(1) Specific intelligence information and specific investigative records compiled by investigative, law enforcement, and penology agencies, and state agencies vested with the responsibility to discipline members of any profession, the nondisclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement or for the protection of any persons right to privacy. Officer Barfields cellular phone number, where it appears effective law enforcement: RCW 42.56.240(1) Specific intelligence information and spe cific investigative records compiled by investigative, law enforcement, and penology agencies, and state agencies vested with the responsibility to discipline members of any profession, the nondisclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement or for the protection of any persons right to privacy.

Email string between Senior Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes and Commander Katie McClincy, dated between 10/12/2011 at 8:29 a.m. and 10/12/2011 dated 9:56 a.m., subject line FW: Public Disclosure Request:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations:

RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under t his chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employ ment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Senior Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes and Attorney Richard B. Jolley, who represents the City on a matter, dated between 10/03/2011 at 5:08 p.m. and 10/04/2011 at 9:25 a.m., subject line Attorney Client privileged:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email between Carlene Balcomb-Bartok and Aaron Hisel, dated 05/06/2011, no subject line:
ACTIVE INVESTIGATIONS These records contain information regarding an active investigation the non-disclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement, and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations. See also Newman v. King County, 133 Wn.2d 565, 947 P.2d 712 (1997) and Cowles Publishing Co. v. Spokane Policy Department, 139 Wn.2d 472 987 P.2d 620 (1999). RCW 42.56.240(1) Specific intelligence information and specific investigative records compiled by investigative, law enforcement, and penology agencies, and state agencies vested with the responsibility to discipline members of any profession, the nondisclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement or for the protection of any persons right to privacy. NON-CONVICTION INFORMATION These records contain non-conviction criminal history information protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 10.97.080 No person shall be allowed to retain or mechanically repr oduce any nonconviction data except for the purpose of challenge or correction when the person who is the subject of the record asserts the belief in writing that the information regarding such person is inaccurate or incomplete. The provisions of chapter 42.56 RCW shall not be construed to require or authorize copying of non-conviction data for any other purpose. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing.

Attachment to Email string between Det. Ryan Rutledge and Commander Katie McClincy dated between 08/08/2011 at 3:48 p.m. and 08/09/2011 at 10:19 a.m., subject line Public Disclosure Request:
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS These records contain social security numbers protected from disclosure and have been redacted per the following citations: Title 5, Section 552(a) United States Regulations, Annotated Secs 102, 301, 106(1) RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a

manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. SPECIFIC INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION These records contain specific intelligence information protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citation: RCW 42.56.240(1) Specific intelligence information and specific investigative records compiled by investigative, law enforcement, and penology agencies, and state agencies vested with the responsibility to discipline members of any profession, the nondisclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement or for the protection of any persons right to privacy. EMPLOYEE PRIVATE INFORMATION These records contain private information of an employee or volunteer of the agency maintained in personnel files, public employment related records or volunteer rosters protected from disclosure and have been redacted per the following citations: RCW 42.56.230(3) Personal information in files maintained for employees, appointees, or elected officials of any public agency to the extent that disclosure would violate their right to privacy. RCW 42.56.250(3) The residential addresses, residential telephone numbers, person al wireless telephone numbers, personal electronic mail addresses, social security numbers, and emergency contact information of employees or volunteers of a public agency, and the names, dates of birth, residential addresses, residential telephone numbers, personal wireless telephone numbers, personal electronic mail addresses, social security numbers, and emergency contact information of dependents of employees or volunteers of a public agency that are held by any public agency in personnel records, public employment related records, or volunteer rosters, or are included in any mailing list of employees or volunteers of any public agency .

From search term Civil Service Appeal:

Email string between City Attorney Larry Warren, Chief Kevin Milosevich, Mayor Denis Law, CAO Jay Covington, and HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson dated between 01/07/2011 at 4:54 p.m. and 12/15/2010 at 11:35 a.m., subject line FW:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her cl ient, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of

specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, City Attorney Larry Warren, and Attorney Alexander Higgins, dated between 09/12/2011 at 10:21 a.m. and 09/22/2011 at 9:41 a.m., subject line Chuck Marsalisi: Public Records Act Request:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, Chief Kevin Milosevich, HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson, City Attorney Larry Warren, and Attorney Alexander Higgins, dated between 09/12/2011 at 10:21 a.m. and 09/25/2011 at 5:24 a.m., subject line Chuck Marsalisi: Public Records Act Request :

ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, Chief Kevin Milosevich, HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson, City Attorney Larry Warren, and Attorney Alexander Higgins, dated between 09/12/2011 at 10:21 a.m. and 09/25/2011 at 5:24 a.m., subject line Chuck Marsalisi: Public Records Act Request:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing.

Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, Chief Kevin Milosevich, HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson, City Attorney Larry Warren, and Attorney Alexander Higgins, dated between 09/12/2011 at 10:21 a.m. and 09/25/2011 at 5:53 a.m., subject line Chuck Marsalisi: Public Records Act Request:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, Chief Kevin Milosevich, HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson, City Attorney Larry Warren, and Attorney Alexander Higgins, dated between 09/12/2011 at 10:21 a.m. and 09/25/2011 at 5:53 a.m., subject line Chuck Marsalisi: Public Records Act Request:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations:

RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapte r. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, Chief Kevin Milosevich, HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson, City Attorney Larry Warren, and Attorney Alexander Higgins, dated between 09/12/2011 at 10:21 a.m. and 10/12/2011 at an unknown time, subject line Chuck Marsalisi: Public Records Act Request:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221

Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, Commander Katie McClincy, and Attorney Alexander Higgins, dated between 10/18/2011 at 10:57 a.m. and 10/19/2011 at 8:33 a.m., subject line Public Records Requests:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency i s a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rule s, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Deputy Chief Timothy L Troxel and Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, dated between 10/21/2011 at 11:07 a.m. and 10/24/2011 at 3:46 a.m., subject line Renton Civil Service Appeal:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment.

RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

From search term Parody:

Email string between Chief Kevin Milosevich and Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, dated between 10/23/2011 at 8:39 p.m. and 10/24/2011 at 8:44 a.m., subject line draft exhibit list:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, and Commander Clark Wilcox, dated between 10/24/2011 at 9:07 a.m. and 10/24/2011 at 3:24 p.m., subject line Attorney client privilege:

ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Senior Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes and Attorney Richard B. Jolley, who represents the City on a matter, dated from 10/03/2011 at 5:08 p.m. to 10/04/2011 at 1:14 p.m., subject line Attorney Client privileged:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in wri ting.

Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

From search term SCORE Video:

Email to Chief Milosevich, dated 04/27/2011 at 2:13 p.m. (senders name redacted effective Law Enforcement):
RCW 42.56.240(1) Specific intelligence information and specific investigative records compiled by investigative, law enforcement, and penology agencies, and state agencies vested with the responsibility to discipline members of any profession, the nondisclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement or for the protection of any persons right to privacy.

Attachment to the above email a memorandum dated 04/27/2011 to Chief Milosevich (creators name redacted effective Law Enforcement):
RCW 42.56.240(1) Specific intelligence information and specific investigative records compiled by investigative, law enforcement, and penology agencies, and state agencies vested with the responsibility to discipline members of any profession, the nondisclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement or for the protection of any persons right to privacy.

Email string and attached documents between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, Chief Kevin Milosevich, and HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson, dated between 07/09/2011 at 10:58 a.m. and 07/11/2011 at 7:24 a.m., subject line FW::
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client , be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827

Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between HR Analyst Brian Sandler and an entry-level candidate for the position of Firefighter regarding the candidates test scores, dated between 05/20/2011 at 7:04 p.m. and 05/23/2011 at 4:14 p.m., subject line Re: Entry Level Firefighter Test Did not have passing score:
EMPLOYEE APPLICATIONS & ATTACHMENTS These records, consisting of applications for public employment and other related materials submitted with respect to an applicant, are protected from disclosure and have been withheld in their entirety per the following citation: RCW 42.56.250(2) All applications for public employment, including the names of applicants, resumes, and other related materials submitted with respect to an applicant. TEST QUESTIONS, SCORING KEYS, DATA FOR EMPLOYMENT & ACADEMIC EXAMS These records contain test questions, scoring keys, and/or other examination data used to administer a license, employment or academic examination, protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citation: RCW 42.56.250(1) Test questions, scoring keys, and other examination data used to administer a license, employment, or academic examination

Email string between HR Analyst Brian Sandler and an entry-level candidate for the position of Firefighter regarding the candidates test scores, dated between 05/20/2011 at 4:04 p.m. and 05/23/2011 at 10:59 a.m., subject line Entry Level Firefighter Test Did not have passing score:
EMPLOYEE APPLICATIONS & ATTACHMENTS These records, consisting of applications for public employment and other related materials submitted with respect to an applicant, are protected from disclosure and have been withheld in their entirety per the following citation: RCW 42.56.250(2) All applications for public employment, including the names of applicants, resumes, and other related materials submitted with respect to an applicant. TEST QUESTIONS, SCORING KEYS, DATA FOR EMPLOYMENT & ACADEMIC EXAMS These records contain test questions, scoring keys, and/or other examination data used to administer a license, employment or academic examination, protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citation: RCW 42.56.250(1) Test questions, scoring keys, and other examination data used to administer a license, employment, or academic examination

From search term Motion to Quash:

Email between Leland Ripley and City of Renton Prosecutor Shawn Arthur, dated 09/30/2011 at 11:20 a.m., subject line Re: Bharti motion (attorney client privilege):
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email between Senior Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes and City Attorney Larry Warren, dated 08/16/2011 at 5:43 p.m., subject line Response to Motion to Quash.doc:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a

manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Senior Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes and City Attorney Larry Warren, dated 08/15/2011 at 10:53 a.m. and 08/15/2011 at 11:10 a.m., subject line FW: City of Renton, Case # 11 2 12056 2 KNT:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from d isclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between City Attorney Larry Warren and Senior Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes, dated between 08/15/2011 at 10:53 a.m. and 08/15/2011 at 11:09 a.m., subject line FW: City of Renton, Case # 11 2 12056 2 KNT:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter.

RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between City Attorney Larry Warren and Senior Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes, dated between 08/15/2011 at 10:53 a.m. and 08/15/2011 at 11:07 a.m., subject line FW: City of Renton, Case # 11 2 12056 2 KNT:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email between City Attorney Larry Warren and Senior Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes, dated 08/15/2011 at 10:53 a.m., subject line FW: City of Renton, Case # 11 2 12056 2 KNT:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between City Attorney Larry Warren and Mayor Denis Law, Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington, Chief Kevin Milosevich, and Communications Director Preeti Shridhar, dated between 08/11/2011 at 1:14 p.m. and 08/11/2011 at 1:37 p.m., subject line FW: Response to Motion to Quash.PDF:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of

personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between City Attorney Larry Warren and Mayor Denis Law, Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington, Chief Kevin Milosevich, and Communications Director Preeti Shridhar, dated between 08/11/2011 at 1:14 p.m. and 08/11/2011 at 1:43 p.m., subject line FW: Response to Motion to Quash.PDF:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between City Attorney Larry Warren and Mayor Denis Law, Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington, Chief Kevin Milosevich, and Communications Director Preeti Shridhar, dated between 08/11/2011 at 1:14 p.m. and 08/11/2011 at 1:37 p.m., subject line FW: Response to Motion to Quash.PDF:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations:

RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make availabl e for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between City Attorney Larry Warren and Mayor Denis Law, Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington, Chief Kevin Milosevich, and Communications Director Preeti Shridhar, dated between 08/11/2011 at 1:14 p.m. and 08/11/2011 at 1:37 p.m., subject line FW: Response to Motion to Quash.PDF:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclo sure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747

Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email between City Attorney Larry Warren and Mayor Denis Law, Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington, Chief Kevin Milosevich, and Communications Director Preeti Shridhar, dated 08/11/2011 at 1:14 p.m., subject line FW: Response to Motion to Quash.PDF:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in w riting. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email Redaction Log

From email search term A Penny Tale:
Email between Chief Kevin Milosevich and Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, dated 10/24/2011, subject line RE: draft exhibit list:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controvers y to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, and Commander Kent Curry, dated 10/24/2011, subject line attorney client privilege:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the con sent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment.

RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email between Commander Kent Curry and Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, dated 10/25/11, subject line: RE: attorney client privilege.
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

From email search term fuddlesticks :

Email string between Senior Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes and Attorney Richard B. Jolley, who represents the City on a matter, dated from 10/03/2011 at 5:08 p.m. to 10/04/2011 at 1:14 p.m., subject line Attorney Client privileged:

ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

From email search term SCORE Parody:

Email string between Senior Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes and Commander Katie McClincy dated between 10/12/2011 at 7:29 a.m. and 10/12/2011 at 8:56 a.m. (and includes Mr. Dougans Public Disclosure request of 10/7/2011 to Mayor Law and Commander McClincy, forwarded to City Attorney Larry Warren, forwarded to Senior Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes, and forwarded to Commander McClincy), subject line FW: Public Disclosure Request:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosu re under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professio nal employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of

specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Chief Kevin Milosevich and Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, dated between 10/23/2011 at 8:39 p.m. and 10/24/2011 at 8:44 a.m., subject line draft exhibit list:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exemp t from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, and Commander Clark Wilcox, dated between 10/24/2011 at 9:07 a.m. and 10/24/2011 at 3:24 p.m., subject line Attorney client privilege:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations:

RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Chief Kevin Milosevich and Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, dated between 04/27/2011 at 9:37 a.m. and 04/27/2011 at 5:21 p.m., subject line YouTube Videos:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

From email search term parody:

Email string between Chief Kevin Milosevich at Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, dated between 10/23/2011 at 8:39 p.m. and 10/24/2011 at 8:44 a.m., subject line draft exhibit list:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, and Commander Clark Wilcox, dated between 10/24/2011 at 9:07 a.m. and 10/24/2011 at 3:24 p.m., subject line Attorney client privilege:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment.

RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Senior Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes and Attorney Richard B. Jolley, who represents the City on a matter, dated from 10/03/2011 at 3:08 p.m. to 10/04/2011 at 1:14 p.m., subject line Attorney Client privileged:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency i s a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rule s, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

From email search term demotion:

Email string between HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson and Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, dated between 05/03/2011 at 4:23 p.m. and 05/05/2011 at 10:01 a.m. Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, Chief Kevin Milosevich, and HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson, dated between 05/31/2011 at 4:34 p.m. and 06/01/2011 at 6:14 a.m., subject line Draft:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with publish ed rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between HR Manager Cathryn Laird, Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, and HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson, dated between 06/17/2011 at 8:00 a.m. and 06/17/2011 at 12:50 p.m., subject line Griffith-Termination Memo:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this ch apter.

RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Chief Kevin Milosevich, HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson, HR Manager Cathryn Laird, and Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City in a matter, dated between 07/01/2011 at 11:50 a.m. and 07/01/2011 at 12:53 p.m., subject line Upon further review:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writ ing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, Chief Kevin Milosevich, HR/RM director Nancy Carlson, and HR Manager Cathryn Laird, dated between 06/30/2011 at 3:42 p.m. and 07/05/2011 at 10:51 a.m., subject line Marsalisi Final Discipline:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available f or public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Chief Kevin Milosevich, HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson, and Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, dated between 08/08/2011 at 11:33 a.m. and 08/08/2011 at 2:20 p.m., subject line Judds Discipline:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a contro versy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of

specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between HR Manager Cathryn Laird, Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, and HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson, dated between 06/17/2011 at 8:00 a.m. and 06/17/2011 at 12:49 p.m., subject line Griffith-Termination Memo:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Chief Kevin Milosevich, Commander Floyd Eldridge, Deputy Chief Timothy Troxel, and HR Analyst Brian Sandler, dated between 07/20/2011 at 8:52 a.m. and 08/29/2011 at 3:30 p.m., subject line Promotional Exam announcement change:
TEST QUESTIONS, SCORING KEYS, DATA FOR EMPLOYMENT & ACADEMIC EXAMS These records contain test questions, scoring keys, and/or other examination data used to administer a license,

employment or academic examination, protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citation: RCW 42.56.250(1) Test questions, scoring keys, and other examination data used to administer a license, employment, or academic examination

Email string between Chief Kevin Milosevich, Commander Floyd Eldridge, and HR Analyst Brian Sandler, dated between 09/23/2011 at 8:15 a.m. and 09/23/2011 at 1:16 p.m., subject line written exam question:
TEST QUESTIONS, SCORING KEYS, DATA FOR EMPLOYMENT & ACADEMIC EXAMS These records contain test questions, scoring keys, and/or other examination data used to administer a license, employment or academic examination, protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citation: RCW 42.56.250(1) Test questions, scoring keys, and other examination data used to administer a license, employment, or academic examination

Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City in a matter, Chief Kevin Milosevich, HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson, Commander Katie McClincy, and Attorney Alexander Higgins, dated between 10/18/2011 at 11:00 a.m. and 07/19/2011 at 7:35 a.m., subject line Second RPA (sic) Request:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this cha pter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson and Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City in a matter, dated between 10/21/2011 at 4:18 p.m. and 10/22/2011 at 8:43 a.m., subject line redacted:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, Chief Kevin Milosevich, HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson, and Attorney Alexander Higgins, dated between 10/21/2011 at 9:42 a.m. and 10/24/2011 at 8:16 a.m., subject line Elements of Settlement:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment.

RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explai ned fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City in a matter, and Commander Kent M. Curry, dated 10/24/2011 at 9:32 a.m., subject line attorney client privilege:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writi ng. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City in a matter, and Commander Katie McClincy, dated 10/24/2011 at 9:35 a.m., subject line Attorney client privilege:

ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the city in a matter, HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson, Chief Kevin Milosevich, and Attorney Alexander Higgins, dated between 10/21/2011 at 11:13 a.m. and 10/24/2011 at 9:59 a.m., subject line Elements of Settlement:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing.

Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City in a matter, and Commander Katie McClincy, dated between 10/24/2011 at 10:00 a.m. and 10/24/2011 at 11:01 a.m., subject line Attorney client privilege:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make availab le for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the city in a matter, HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson, Chief Kevin Milosevich, Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington, and Attorney Alexander Higgins, dated between 10/21/2011 at 11:13 a.m. and 10/24/2011 at 2:01 p.m., subject line Elements of Settlement:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter.

RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City in a matter, HR/RM Director Nancy Carlson, Chief Kevin Milosevich, Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington, and Attorney Alexander Higgins, dated between 10/25/2011 at 10:32 a.m. and 10/25/2011 at 1:42 pm, subject line Marsalisi settlement language:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but whic h records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City in a matter, and Commander Kent M. Curry, dated between 10/24/2011 at 10:33 a.m. and 10/25/2011 at 2:51 p.m., subject line attorney client privilege:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with publish ed rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Attorney Alexander Higgins, Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City in a matter, HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson, and Chief Kevin Milosevich, dated between 10/25/2011 at 10:35 a.m. and 10/25/2011 at 17:39 p.m., subject line Marsalisi settlement language:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exemp t from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of

specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email and attachments between HR Manager Cathryn Laird and Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, dated 08/31/2011 at 4:34 p.m., subject line redacted:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure unde r this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional emp loyment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

From email search term YouTube :

Email string between Daniel C Figaro, Shirley Rickman, Bryan Elliott, Jon M Schuldt, Scott Barfield, Kelly Matsukawa, Paul Stratford, Tracy L Wilkinson, Robert P Onishi, Peter W Kordel, Steven D. Morris, Thaddeus Kerkhoff, Quint Tibeau, dated between 08/31/2011 at 5:03 p.m. and 09/06/2011 at 3:52 p.m., subject line Intel Highland autothefts / car prowls / ** use caution **:

ACTIVE INVESTIGATIONS These records contain information regarding an active investigation the non-disclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement, and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations. See also Newman v. King County, 133 Wn.2d 565, 947 P.2d 712 (1997) and Cowles Publishing Co. v. Spokane Policy Department, 139 Wn.2d 472 987 P.2d 620 (1999). RCW 42.56.240(1) Specific intelligence information and specific investigative records compiled by investigative, law enforcement, and penology agencies, and state agencies vested with the responsibility to discipline members of any profession, the nondisclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement or for the protection of any persons right to privacy. VEHICLE OWNER INFORMATION These records contain the name and address of the registered owner of a vehicle, which shall not be released under RCW 46.12.635. RECORDS RELATING TO COMMISSION OF JUVENILE OFFENSES These records contain information relating to juveniles and juvenile offenses, which shall not be released under RCW 13.50.050.

Email string between Scott Barfield, Cyndie L Parks, Thaddeus Kerkhoff, Carlene BalcombBartok, Shirley Rickman, Mark R Gropper, Sheila Hatch, dated between 09/01/2011 at 12:41 p.m. and 09/19/2011 at 2:32 p.m., subject line Renton Highlands Rollin 60s Crip Gang:
ACTIVE INVESTIGATIONS These records contain information regarding an active investigation the non-disclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement, and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations. See also Newman v. King County, 133 Wn.2d 565, 947 P.2d 712 (1997) and Cowles Publishing Co. v. Spokane Policy Department, 139 Wn.2d 472 987 P.2d 620 (1999). RCW 42.56.240(1) Specific intelligence information and specific investigative records compiled by investigative, law enforcement, and penology agencies, and state agencies vested with the responsibility to discipline members of any profession, the nondisclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement or for the protection of any persons right to privacy. Officer Barfields cellular phone number, where it appears effective law enforcement: RCW 42.56.240(1) Specific intelligence information and spe cific investigative records compiled by investigative, law enforcement, and penology agencies, and state agencies vested with the responsibility to discipline members of any profession, the nondisclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement or for the protection of any persons right to privacy.

Email string between Senior Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes and Commander Katie McClincy, dated between 10/12/2011 at 8:29 a.m. and 10/12/2011 dated 9:56 a.m., subject line FW: Public Disclosure Request:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations:

RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under t his chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employ ment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Senior Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes and Attorney Richard B. Jolley, who represents the City on a matter, dated between 10/03/2011 at 5:08 p.m. and 10/04/2011 at 9:25 a.m., subject line Attorney Client privileged:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email between Carlene Balcomb-Bartok and Aaron Hisel, dated 05/06/2011, no subject line:
ACTIVE INVESTIGATIONS These records contain information regarding an active investigation the non-disclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement, and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations. See also Newman v. King County, 133 Wn.2d 565, 947 P.2d 712 (1997) and Cowles Publishing Co. v. Spokane Policy Department, 139 Wn.2d 472 987 P.2d 620 (1999). RCW 42.56.240(1) Specific intelligence information and specific investigative records compiled by investigative, law enforcement, and penology agencies, and state agencies vested with the responsibility to discipline members of any profession, the nondisclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement or for the protection of any persons right to privacy. NON-CONVICTION INFORMATION These records contain non-conviction criminal history information protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 10.97.080 No person shall be allowed to retain or mechanically repr oduce any nonconviction data except for the purpose of challenge or correction when the person who is the subject of the record asserts the belief in writing that the information regarding such person is inaccurate or incomplete. The provisions of chapter 42.56 RCW shall not be construed to require or authorize copying of non-conviction data for any other purpose. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing.

Attachment to Email string between Det. Ryan Rutledge and Commander Katie McClincy dated between 08/08/2011 at 3:48 p.m. and 08/09/2011 at 10:19 a.m., subject line Public Disclosure Request:
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS These records contain social security numbers protected from disclosure and have been redacted per the following citations: Title 5, Section 552(a) United States Regulations, Annotated Secs 102, 301, 106(1) RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a

manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. SPECIFIC INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION These records contain specific intelligence information protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citation: RCW 42.56.240(1) Specific intelligence information and specific investigative records compiled by investigative, law enforcement, and penology agencies, and state agencies vested with the responsibility to discipline members of any profession, the nondisclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement or for the protection of any persons right to privacy. EMPLOYEE PRIVATE INFORMATION These records contain private information of an employee or volunteer of the agency maintained in personnel files, public employment related records or volunteer rosters protected from disclosure and have been redacted per the following citations: RCW 42.56.230(3) Personal information in files maintained for employees, appointees, or elected officials of any public agency to the extent that disclosure would violate their right to privacy. RCW 42.56.250(3) The residential addresses, residential telephone numbers, person al wireless telephone numbers, personal electronic mail addresses, social security numbers, and emergency contact information of employees or volunteers of a public agency, and the names, dates of birth, residential addresses, residential telephone numbers, personal wireless telephone numbers, personal electronic mail addresses, social security numbers, and emergency contact information of dependents of employees or volunteers of a public agency that are held by any public agency in personnel records, public employment related records, or volunteer rosters, or are included in any mailing list of employees or volunteers of any public agency .

From search term Civil Service Appeal:

Email string between City Attorney Larry Warren, Chief Kevin Milosevich, Mayor Denis Law, CAO Jay Covington, and HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson dated between 01/07/2011 at 4:54 p.m. and 12/15/2010 at 11:35 a.m., subject line FW:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her cl ient, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of

specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, City Attorney Larry Warren, and Attorney Alexander Higgins, dated between 09/12/2011 at 10:21 a.m. and 09/22/2011 at 9:41 a.m., subject line Chuck Marsalisi: Public Records Act Request:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, Chief Kevin Milosevich, HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson, City Attorney Larry Warren, and Attorney Alexander Higgins, dated between 09/12/2011 at 10:21 a.m. and 09/25/2011 at 5:24 a.m., subject line Chuck Marsalisi: Public Records Act Request :

ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, Chief Kevin Milosevich, HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson, City Attorney Larry Warren, and Attorney Alexander Higgins, dated between 09/12/2011 at 10:21 a.m. and 09/25/2011 at 5:24 a.m., subject line Chuck Marsalisi: Public Records Act Request:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing.

Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, Chief Kevin Milosevich, HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson, City Attorney Larry Warren, and Attorney Alexander Higgins, dated between 09/12/2011 at 10:21 a.m. and 09/25/2011 at 5:53 a.m., subject line Chuck Marsalisi: Public Records Act Request:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, Chief Kevin Milosevich, HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson, City Attorney Larry Warren, and Attorney Alexander Higgins, dated between 09/12/2011 at 10:21 a.m. and 09/25/2011 at 5:53 a.m., subject line Chuck Marsalisi: Public Records Act Request:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations:

RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapte r. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, Chief Kevin Milosevich, HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson, City Attorney Larry Warren, and Attorney Alexander Higgins, dated between 09/12/2011 at 10:21 a.m. and 10/12/2011 at an unknown time, subject line Chuck Marsalisi: Public Records Act Request:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221

Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, Commander Katie McClincy, and Attorney Alexander Higgins, dated between 10/18/2011 at 10:57 a.m. and 10/19/2011 at 8:33 a.m., subject line Public Records Requests:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency i s a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rule s, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Deputy Chief Timothy L Troxel and Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, dated between 10/21/2011 at 11:07 a.m. and 10/24/2011 at 3:46 a.m., subject line Renton Civil Service Appeal:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment.

RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

From search term Parody:

Email string between Chief Kevin Milosevich and Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, dated between 10/23/2011 at 8:39 p.m. and 10/24/2011 at 8:44 a.m., subject line draft exhibit list:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, and Commander Clark Wilcox, dated between 10/24/2011 at 9:07 a.m. and 10/24/2011 at 3:24 p.m., subject line Attorney client privilege:

ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Senior Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes and Attorney Richard B. Jolley, who represents the City on a matter, dated from 10/03/2011 at 5:08 p.m. to 10/04/2011 at 1:14 p.m., subject line Attorney Client privileged:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in wri ting.

Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

From search term SCORE Video:

Email to Chief Milosevich, dated 04/27/2011 at 2:13 p.m. (senders name redacted effective Law Enforcement):
RCW 42.56.240(1) Specific intelligence information and specific investigative records compiled by investigative, law enforcement, and penology agencies, and state agencies vested with the responsibility to discipline members of any profession, the nondisclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement or for the protection of any persons right to privacy.

Attachment to the above email a memorandum dated 04/27/2011 to Chief Milosevich (creators name redacted effective Law Enforcement):
RCW 42.56.240(1) Specific intelligence information and specific investigative records compiled by investigative, law enforcement, and penology agencies, and state agencies vested with the responsibility to discipline members of any profession, the nondisclosure of which is essential to effective law enforcement or for the protection of any persons right to privacy.

Email string and attached documents between Attorney Beth Kennar, who represents the City on a matter, Chief Kevin Milosevich, and HR/RM Administrator Nancy Carlson, dated between 07/09/2011 at 10:58 a.m. and 07/11/2011 at 7:24 a.m., subject line FW::
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client , be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827

Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between HR Analyst Brian Sandler and an entry-level candidate for the position of Firefighter regarding the candidates test scores, dated between 05/20/2011 at 7:04 p.m. and 05/23/2011 at 4:14 p.m., subject line Re: Entry Level Firefighter Test Did not have passing score:
EMPLOYEE APPLICATIONS & ATTACHMENTS These records, consisting of applications for public employment and other related materials submitted with respect to an applicant, are protected from disclosure and have been withheld in their entirety per the following citation: RCW 42.56.250(2) All applications for public employment, including the names of applicants, resumes, and other related materials submitted with respect to an applicant. TEST QUESTIONS, SCORING KEYS, DATA FOR EMPLOYMENT & ACADEMIC EXAMS These records contain test questions, scoring keys, and/or other examination data used to administer a license, employment or academic examination, protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citation: RCW 42.56.250(1) Test questions, scoring keys, and other examination data used to administer a license, employment, or academic examination

Email string between HR Analyst Brian Sandler and an entry-level candidate for the position of Firefighter regarding the candidates test scores, dated between 05/20/2011 at 4:04 p.m. and 05/23/2011 at 10:59 a.m., subject line Entry Level Firefighter Test Did not have passing score:
EMPLOYEE APPLICATIONS & ATTACHMENTS These records, consisting of applications for public employment and other related materials submitted with respect to an applicant, are protected from disclosure and have been withheld in their entirety per the following citation: RCW 42.56.250(2) All applications for public employment, including the names of applicants, resumes, and other related materials submitted with respect to an applicant. TEST QUESTIONS, SCORING KEYS, DATA FOR EMPLOYMENT & ACADEMIC EXAMS These records contain test questions, scoring keys, and/or other examination data used to administer a license, employment or academic examination, protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citation: RCW 42.56.250(1) Test questions, scoring keys, and other examination data used to administer a license, employment, or academic examination

From search term Motion to Quash:

Email between Leland Ripley and City of Renton Prosecutor Shawn Arthur, dated 09/30/2011 at 11:20 a.m., subject line Re: Bharti motion (attorney client privilege):
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email between Senior Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes and City Attorney Larry Warren, dated 08/16/2011 at 5:43 p.m., subject line Response to Motion to Quash.doc:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a

manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between Senior Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes and City Attorney Larry Warren, dated 08/15/2011 at 10:53 a.m. and 08/15/2011 at 11:10 a.m., subject line FW: City of Renton, Case # 11 2 12056 2 KNT:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from d isclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between City Attorney Larry Warren and Senior Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes, dated between 08/15/2011 at 10:53 a.m. and 08/15/2011 at 11:09 a.m., subject line FW: City of Renton, Case # 11 2 12056 2 KNT:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter.

RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between City Attorney Larry Warren and Senior Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes, dated between 08/15/2011 at 10:53 a.m. and 08/15/2011 at 11:07 a.m., subject line FW: City of Renton, Case # 11 2 12056 2 KNT:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email between City Attorney Larry Warren and Senior Assistant City Attorney Zanetta Fontes, dated 08/15/2011 at 10:53 a.m., subject line FW: City of Renton, Case # 11 2 12056 2 KNT:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between City Attorney Larry Warren and Mayor Denis Law, Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington, Chief Kevin Milosevich, and Communications Director Preeti Shridhar, dated between 08/11/2011 at 1:14 p.m. and 08/11/2011 at 1:37 p.m., subject line FW: Response to Motion to Quash.PDF:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of

personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between City Attorney Larry Warren and Mayor Denis Law, Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington, Chief Kevin Milosevich, and Communications Director Preeti Shridhar, dated between 08/11/2011 at 1:14 p.m. and 08/11/2011 at 1:43 p.m., subject line FW: Response to Motion to Quash.PDF:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between City Attorney Larry Warren and Mayor Denis Law, Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington, Chief Kevin Milosevich, and Communications Director Preeti Shridhar, dated between 08/11/2011 at 1:14 p.m. and 08/11/2011 at 1:37 p.m., subject line FW: Response to Motion to Quash.PDF:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations:

RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make availabl e for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email string between City Attorney Larry Warren and Mayor Denis Law, Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington, Chief Kevin Milosevich, and Communications Director Preeti Shridhar, dated between 08/11/2011 at 1:14 p.m. and 08/11/2011 at 1:37 p.m., subject line FW: Response to Motion to Quash.PDF:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclo sure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in writing. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747

Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716

Email between City Attorney Larry Warren and Mayor Denis Law, Chief Administrative Officer Jay Covington, Chief Kevin Milosevich, and Communications Director Preeti Shridhar, dated 08/11/2011 at 1:14 p.m., subject line FW: Response to Motion to Quash.PDF:
ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE These records reflect privileged attorney-client communication, and/or attorney work product protected from disclosure and have been redacted or withheld in their entirety per the following citations: RCW 42.56.290 Records that are relevant to a controversy to which an agency is a party but which records would not be available to another party under the rules of pretrial discovery for causes pending in the superior courts are exempt from disclosure under this chapter. RCW 5.60.060(2)(a) An attorney or counselor shall not, without the consent of his or her client, be examined as to any communication made by the client to him or her, or his or her advice given thereon in the course of professional employment. RCW 42.56.070(1) Each agency, in accordance with published rules, shall make available for public inspection and copying all public records, unless the record falls within the specific exemptions of subsection (6) of this section, this chapter, or other statute which exempts or prohibits disclosure of specific information or records. To the extent required to prevent an unreasonable invasion of personal privacy interests protected by this chapter, an agency shall delete identifying details in a manner consistent with this chapter when it makes available or publishes any public record; however, in each case, the justification for the deletion shall be explained fully in w riting. Sanders v State 169 Wn 2d 827 Morgan v Federal Way 166 Wn 2d 747 Koenig v Pierce County 157 Wn App 221 Soter v Cowles Publishing 162 Wn 2d 716