This is a particularly scathing condemnation of King County government and the way it treated a public records request by a citizen. The case was from 1997.

UPDATE: The lawyer for Allied Daily Newspapers called me back. She said the fine at $15 a day amounted to about $123,000. At $100 a day, it would be well over $750,000.

Here is part the 5-4 ruling handed down today by the Washington Supreme Court:

Specifically, we decide whether the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a $15 per day penalty in response to King County's grossly negligent noncompliance with the Public Records Act. Under the facts of this case we hold the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a penalty at the low end of the PRA penalty range.

The case is Armen Yousoufian vs. Office of King County Executive Ron Sims. It involves a public records request made in 1997 by a guy who wanted to learn more about the rationale for the public to build a $300 million stadium for the Seattle Seahawks.

Lower court judges ruled against King County for giving Yousoufian the royal runaround, but fined the county only $15 a day for the violation of the state Public Records and Open Meetings Act.

The court majority said the fine should be at the high end of the $5 to $100 a day range because there were many "aggravating" circumstances, and "proper deterrence for King County and others clearly requires a penalty at the high end of the penalty range."

Here's my favorite line from the ruling:
"A flea bite does little to deter an elephant."

[More:]

More from the ruling:

King County failed to reply to Yousoufian's clear request promptly
or accurately.
King County failed to train its responding personnel or supervise its
response.
King County did not comply strictly to the procedures set forth in RCW
42.56.520, failing to seek clarification from Yousoufian when necessary, failing to give any reason for its delay, failing to set forth an exception for its refusal, failing to provide any estimate of its delayed response time, and making Yousoufian contact King County more than 11 times over the course of two years to obtain the requested
information when under the statute only one request should suffice. King County either made no explanation of its noncompliance or
misrepresented the truth. As the trial judge found, with proper diligence and attention, King County could have responded accurately to Yousoufian within five days. The potential for public harm was high; the requested records tested the veracity of King County's assertions regarding a pending referendum on a $300 million public financing scheme. The request was time-sensitive, seeking documents relevant to the upcoming referendum, whereas the disclosure of these documents was delayed years beyond the election day without justification.

The Supremes sent it back to lower courts to impose a different fine. I've got calls out to the lawyer for Yousoufian and the lawyer who represented Allied Daily Newspapers, which filed an amicus brief.

Here is a link to the majority opinion, written by Justice Richard Sanders.