News - Local News

POSTED: Sunday, Jun. 28, 2009

Bellingham still fighting to keep Amtrak records private in death case

BELLINGHAM - The city of Bellingham is still trying to keep secret documents sought by the lawyer for the family of a woman killed by an Amtrak train at Boulevard Park.

Whatcom County Superior Court Judge Charles Snyder largely gave a win to the city, ordering recently that seven of the 80 withheld documents should be released to lawyer Steve Chance by Saturday, June 27. The rest, Snyder ruled, were exempt from public disclosure because of attorney-client privilege or that they were attorney work product.

Despite the ruling, city officials have asked for reconsideration of the seven documents and asked Snyder if lawyers could file a confidential, non-public memo to him to explain why they shouldn't be released.

The case stems from a public records request filed by Chance on behalf of the family of 49-year-old Maia Haykin, who was struck by a train while crossing the tracks at Boulevard Park on her bicycle May 20, 2008.

The crossing has been an issue of contention between the city of Bellingham and BNSF Railway Co. The railroad blocked off the crossing with concrete barriers in 2001, prompting the city to negotiate an agreement with the railway for a pedestrian crossing.

Though the agreement called for bells and flashing lights to be installed at the crossing, only a sign currently warns pedestrians of the train crossing.

Chance sought basically every record the city had relating to work on the pedestrian crossing between both entities.

Chance received hundreds of pages of documents about the issue, but the city cited exemptions in the state's Public Records Act that allows it to withhold certain materials, like those covered by attorney-client privilege. Chance believes some of what was withheld isn't exempt from disclosure. Though Assistant City Attorney Peter Ruffato offered to file a motion for judicial review, rather than having Chance sue to try to get the records released, Chance filed a motion for review first.

Snyder's order gave a hint of the contents of documents he originally ordered released. All of them were e-mails.

One "seems only to be a confirmation that information has been provided," Snyder wrote, "I did not see any specific assertion of facts or information."

Another "seems to be merely a confirmation that certain documents are ready and does not divulge their contents."

One "merely notes the existence of a meeting, the date and possible agenda for the meeting, there seems to be no specific information or any request for legal advice."

Another document noted a conversation, Snyder wrote, "and seems to not be related to any attorney client relationship or information pertinent to such a relationship."

Despite the ruling, the city is arguing the documents should be withheld. Ruffato said the city's memo needs to be private because officials couldn't make their case "without further divulging privileged, work-product, and exempt material."

Snyder will hear arguments about whether to approve the reconsideration of his decision and the city’s confidential memo at the next hearing in the case on July 17.