Langley seeks sanctions in public records lawsuit

Published 1:30 am Friday, August 7, 2026

The city of Langley is asking a judge to order a South Whidbey man and the attorney representing him to pay the city’s $56,000 in legal fees, arguing that the man’s Public Records Act lawsuit is frivolous.

Eric Hood, who has filed Public Records Act lawsuits against government agencies across the state, sued the city in Island County Superior Court in 2023, claiming it failed to comply with the law in responding to a public records request submitted by attorney William Crittenden.

As the case evolved, the central issue became whether documents created or received by Jessica Goldman, the attorney representing the city in the lawsuit, but never shared with city officials, must be provided to the city for review under the Public Records Act — or at least identified as existing.

Hood initially represented himself, but Crittenden later appeared as his attorney. Last month, Crittenden filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the lawsuit. In response, Goldman, who is with Summit Law Group, filed a motion seeking sanctions against both Hood and Crittenden and asking the judge to order them to pay the city’s legal bill.

Crittenden responded by filing a cross motion, asking Island County Superior Court Judge Carolyn Cliff to sanction Goldman and her law firm and award Hood reasonable expenses. In an interview, Crittenden argued that Goldman and her law firm are giving the city poor legal advice while prolonging the litigation to increase their legal fees.

“The city of Langley is being taken for a ride,” he said. “This is their Waterloo.”

Mayor Kennedy Horstman emphasized that the city is committed to transparency and fulfills other public records requests without incident. She said Hood’s lawsuits have imposed a significant financial burden on the city that she finds “appallingly offensive.”

“Since November, legal defense alone has cost the city more than $119,000 and counting,” she wrote in an email. “To put this into perspective, this sum could fund another city staff position, and it does not include the hours of my time or staff time spent supporting the city’s legal defense, nor does it include the staff time required to respond to new public records requests Hood has submitted.”

She said Hood’s actions have increased costs for taxpayers and diverted staff time from other city work.

In her motion, Goldman pointed out that the lawsuit is the fifth of six Public Records Act lawsuits that Hood has filed against Langley and that he’s the only one to file such lawsuits against the city in the last eight years. She discussed how the complaint written by Hood included pages of complaints about older, unrelated cases.

“Hood’s and Crittenden’s vitriol throughout … make plain that they sought to use their filings and this lawsuit as a vendetta against the city, (the Association of Washington Cities) and the city’s private lawyers, seeking retribution for the city’s past actions and its past defenses of Hood and Crittenden’s lawsuits,” Goldman wrote in the motion.

Goldman argued that pleadings by Hood and Crittenden had no basis in fact or law and that they were interposed for improper purposes.

In his cross motion, Crittenden denies that he or Hood were pursuing a vendetta against Goldman and claims she is the one who filed a motion “for the improper purpose of getting revenge.” He wrote that it’s improper for Goldman or the court to consider motivation in handling public records requests or litigation and that each request must be handled in a neutral manner. He accused Goldman of being a “serial sanctions requestor” and wrote that he and Hood had lost track of how many times she had sought sanctions against them.

“The city’s motion was obviously driven by attorney Goldman’s anger at undersigned counsel,” Crittenden wrote. “That is an improper purpose, and it does not serve the interests of the City of Langley.”

Crittenden pointed to a contract between Summit Law Group and the city of Renton. Under an amendment to the contract, Summit Law Group agreed to conduct a diligent search of records in its possession or control related to the agreement and legal services and provide those records to Renton for review in responding to Public Records Act requests.

Crittenden argues that, by agreeing to the amendment, Summit Law Group acknowledged that records related to a case in its sole possession should be provided to its municipal client as part of the public records process. The city receiving the request would then determine whether the records are exempt from disclosure or must be released under the Public Records Act. If exempt, the documents would still have to be identified in an exemption log provided to the requester. Crittenden said Renton requested the amendment, arguing it shows Summit Law Group recognized such records should be provided to its municipal clients for review.

Goldman, however, argued that records in Summit Law Group’s sole possession are not public records because they are not “prepared, owned, used or retained” by Langley. She wrote that the law group is a private business and not a functional equivalent of a public agency under factors outlined in the case “Telford v. Thurston County Board of Commissioners.”

In his motion, Crittenden wrote that Hood decided to dismiss the lawsuit because he didn’t have the “bandwidth” to respond to three motions noted for the same day, nor could he afford to hire Crittenden to address the issues Goldman raised.

The sanctions dispute comes as Hood and the city continue to litigate another Public Records Act lawsuit. Last week, Cliff heard arguments on the city’s motion to dismiss Hood’s sixth lawsuit against Langley. City officials attended the hearing in support of the city. Cliff said she would take the matter under advisement and issue a written ruling.

The court has not ruled on the competing sanctions motions. A hearing in the case is set for Aug. 10. It’s unclear which of the motions Cliff will hear at that time.