# Lindberg v. Kitsap County

> Washington Supreme Court · November 26, 1997 · 133 Wash. 2d 729

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4711360

## Case

- **Full name:** Richard E. Lindberg v. Kitsap County
- **Court:** Washington Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 26, 1997
- **Citations:** 133 Wash. 2d 729; 948 P.2d 805
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Sanders
- **Judges:** Durham, Sanders, Smith
- **Cited by:** 30 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Criticized — as noted by a later court.
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4711360

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- affirming the trial court’s minimal penalty award because the agency had a good faith belief that the requested records were protected by copyright law
- emphasizing that the prevailing party in a public records act case is “entitled to all costs they have incurred in pursing this action”

## Opinion text

Sanders, J.
(concurring in part, dissenting in part) — I *750 concur in Chief Justice Durham’s concurrence/dissent, however, I write separately only to add a further qualification to my concurrence, with her concurrence, in the majority.
Kitsap County essentially defended this Public Disclosure Act action by claiming if it were required to copy and disclose the subject documents at the request of Lindberg, it would risk liability to Pac-Tech Engineering and Hasan for potential copyright infringement. Therefore Kitsap County requested that these persons be made parties to the proceeding to avoid the substantial risk of incurring inconsistent obligations. Compare Weisberg v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 631 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (government runs a substantial risk of incurring inconsistent obligations between compliance with the Freedom of Information Act and a possible copyright infringement action brought by the copyright holder).
Notwithstanding, the majority affirms the trial court determination that disclosure must be made under the Public Disclosure Act while denying the motion to join the copyright holders as necessary parties. Furthermore, the majority refrains from determining certain issues raised by Kitsap County for the first time on appeal, affirmatively concluding "[pjersons who may be involved in the subject matter of an action are not necessary parties where they would not be prejudiced by the judgment.” Majority at 747.
Therefore, it must be firmly understood that the copyright holders, who are not parties to this action, cannot and may not be prejudiced by this result. For example should they commence a separate action against parties to this proceeding, or third parties, upon an infringement of copyright claim, nothing in the majority opinion can present any bar to that claim, nor is any issue of fact or law precluded to the prejudice of persons not parties to this proceeding.
*751 Madsen, J., concurs with Sanders, J.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4711360. Public record. Not legal advice.