Time To Review Your Public Records Request Procedures—AG Adopts Amended Model Rules

It’s official—On October 26, 2026, the Washington State Attorney General finalized the update to the Model Public Records Act rules, WAC 44-14. This is the second significant update since the Model Rules were first adopted in 2007. The new amendments will go into effect November 26, 2026.

I’ve written about the proposal several times, particularly in Feedback Needed on Proposed Changes to the Public Records Act Model Rules and AGO Releases More Proposed PRA Model Rules Amendments – Another Chance to Comment!

Now that the proposal has been finalized, agencies need to review and potentially update their adopted policies and procedures regarding public records request procedures and “consult” the Model Rules while doing so. See RCW 42.56.570(4).

The changes fall into four broad categories:

• emphasizing promptness;
• incorporating significant case law;
• grappling with increased use of personal devices; and, generally,
• cleaning up grammar and word choice.

There are several amendments which will likely require significant procedure and policy changes for local agencies, which I review below.

The Biggest Changes

The biggest changes can be found in timeliness strategies, preferred method of request submissions, management of records on personal devices, when third-party notice should be provided, the records index, and the closing letter.

Timeliness strategies

Many of the changes tighten up the alignment between the Model rules and Chapter 42.56 RCW, the Public Records Act (PRA). For example, the PRA requires “prompt” responses to requests for records and that agency rules and procedures provide for “fullest assistance” and “most timely possible action.”

While the Model Rule already referenced promptness throughout, the amendment adds the word “prompt” in several more places to ensure agencies incorporate that directive into their own procedures. Additionally, installments are to be processed diligently, and estimates for subsequent requests for the same or almost identical records should take into account that assembly will likely take less time than the original effort.

Another change is encouraging agencies to adopt “triaging” procedures. Such a procedure might result in simpler and more specific requests handled as quickly as possible while more complex and time-consuming requests do not back up the queue.

When a request is made for a “single, specific, readily available, identifiable record, that requires limited review for exempt content” agencies are expected to “endeavor” to produce the record within the initial five business days of the request “if practicable to do so.”

If an agency is not able to produce records within the initial five business days of the request, it must then make a reasonable estimate of when the records will be available. In such circumstance, the new rule amendments expect records staff to take into account whether the requestor identified a reason that “time is of the essence” and whether it was practicable and reasonable for the agency to produce the records within that time. If it is not practicable to produce within the requestor’s timeframe, the agency is expected to work with the requestor to identify and prioritize individual records.

Preferred method of request submission

The prior Model Rules indicated that agencies could require requests to be submitted only to designated persons, an address, or web portal.This model rule was negated in 2021 by O’Dea v. City of Tacoma, which pointed out that the PRA itself states that “no official form is required” and that agencies may only “recommend” that requestors submit requests using the agency’s preferred method. Agencies must still process requests, no matter how received, so long as the agency is on “fair notice” that the communication is a request for public records. See RCW 42.56.080(3).

The amendment now brings the Model Rule in line with the statute and the case.

Managing public records on personal devices

Since 2015, the courts have recognized that public records may reside on public employees’ and officials’ personal devices and accounts.

The Washington Supreme Court endorsed the idea that employees and officials are not required to turn over their person devices and accounts and can search for any public records themselves, and appellate courts have said agencies are allowed to reasonably rely on affidavits and declarations regarding these personal device and account searches. See Nissen v. Pierce County (2015) and Valderrama v. City of Sammamish (2024).

However, such searches add several steps to the process of finding and producing records. The amended Model Rules put an emphasis on organizing and maintaining records in such a way that records staff can quickly access and produce records. This includes the agency-wide adoption of policies requiring employees to transfer or copy public records on their personal devices and accounts to work devices and accounts “as soon as practicable.” (The idea is that public records should be under public control as quickly as feasible, which in turn should allow records staff to access the records directly without having to wait for a personal device search.)

Of course, reasonable searches will require employees to still search their personal devices and accounts if used within their scope of employment, even if copies have already been turned over to records staff. Further, the amended model rule does not appear to apply to elected officials or volunteers.

When to provide third-party notice

RCW 42.56.540 gives agencies “the option of notifying persons named in the record or to whom a record specifically pertains, that release of a record has been requested.” The practice has been to delay release of records long enough to give the third party a suitable opportunity to obtain a court order preventing release—typically 10 calendar days.

Since providing this notice will result in a delay of the production of records and create tension with the policy directive to make records available “promptly,” the amended Model Rules emphasize that “an agency should have a reasonable belief that the records are arguably exempt from disclosure” before sending notice. (There are quite a few “gray area” exemptions, including constitutional arguments, which are better asserted by the person that has an interest in the records.)

The amended rules also acknowledge there are statutes that require notice, including the mandatory notice of requests for information exclusively in an employee’s personnel, payroll, supervisor, or training file. See RCW 42.56.250(2).

Records index

RCW 42.56.070(3) requires local agencies to main a “current index” of certain records, including “correspondence.” Local agencies may opt out of maintaining a records index if to do so would be “unduly burdensome” but must still “issue and publish a formal order specifying the reasons why.”

The amended Model Rules clarifies that the formal order must be a separate document—not merely a finding within adopted policies or ordinance—and it must be easily located. Further, the order should specify which type of record listed in RCW 42.56.070(3) would be unduly burdensome for the agency to maintain an index for and specify reasons why.

If the local agency does not opt out, the amended Model Rules expect the index to be available online and for the index to be subject to a revision or update schedule.

Closing letter

Since the 2024 Cousins v. DOC Washington Supreme Court case, agencies have had increased obligations in the final communication to a requestor when closing a records request. I wrote about those new requirements in Starting the Clock: Washington’s Supreme Court Gives New Guidance on Closing Records Requests.

At the time of that case, WAC 44-14-040 and the commentary in WAC 44-14-04006 already recommended some kind of closing letter but the Cousins decision delineated specific elements that should be included in that final definitive response from an agency. The court’s language from Cousins is now explicitly included in the amended rule. Importantly, the final communication must indicate that the request “is now closed.” A statement that a request “will be closed” is not considered a sufficient final statement.

What’s Next

MRSC will be reviewing and updating our related webpages and PRA publication to reflect the changes in the rules. (Keep this in mind if you are relying on older versions of documents and guidance.)

We’ll also include a review of the rule changes in the upcoming 2026 PRA Caselaw Highlights webinar, which, while not yet open for registration, should take place in January of next year. Sign up for our Training Newsletter to get notice when registration opens.