## Facts

- Gina Tiberino worked as a secretary in the Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office and was provided a county computer with email access.
- During orientation, employees were told the county could monitor email, not to send anything they would not want publicly disclosed, and that county equipment was not for personal use.
- Coworkers complained Tiberino sent excessive personal emails containing coarse and vulgar language.
- An internal review found that most of her sent emails were personal rather than work-related.
- Tiberino was terminated for unsatisfactory performance tied to extensive personal email use during work time.
- After her attorney threatened litigation over the discharge, the county printed emails sent or received from her work computer.
- Media organizations requested the emails under Washington’s Public Records Act (PRA).
- Tiberino sought to enjoin disclosure; after in camera review, the trial court ruled the emails were public records and not exempt, and ordered release.

## Issues

1. Whether an employee’s personal emails created or stored on a county email system are “public records” under the PRA because they are “prepared, owned, used, or retained” by an agency in connection with government functions.
2. If the emails are public records, whether they are exempt from disclosure as employee “personal information” where disclosure would violate privacy and the information is not of legitimate public concern.
3. Whether Tiberino was entitled to attorney’s fees for successfully resisting disclosure.

## Decision

- The court held the emails were “public records” because they were used or retained by the county in connection with employment-related governmental functions, including evaluating performance and making a termination decision.
- The court held the emails were exempt from disclosure as personal information because disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and the content was not of legitimate public concern.
- The court reversed the trial court’s disclosure order and granted injunctive relief barring release.
- The court denied attorney’s fees to Tiberino under the PRA’s fee provisions.

## Legal Principles

- The PRA’s definition of “public record” is broad; writings can qualify if an agency prepares, owns, uses, or retains them in connection with governmental decision-making, including personnel actions.
- The employee-file “personal information” exemption applies when (1) disclosure would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and (2) the information is not of legitimate concern to the public.
- The public’s interest under the PRA is in monitoring governmental operations; disclosure is not required when it would primarily expose private details that add little to public understanding of agency conduct.
- PRA attorney’s fees generally favor prevailing requestors enforcing access, not parties who obtain a ruling that records are exempt from disclosure.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that although personal emails on a county system can be public records because they relate to employment decisions, the PRA does not require disclosure of intensely personal communications when release would be highly offensive and not of legitimate public concern, and it denied fees to the employee who blocked disclosure.


Tiberino v. Spokane County, 13 P.3d 1104 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000)