Plaintiffs are erotic dancers and managers at Dreamgirls at Fox's, a Parkland, Washington erotic dance studio. Erotic dancers and managers are required to be licensed under local law. Anderson informed the Plaintiffs of Van Vleet's request and of her intention to disclose their information to him unless Plaintiffs obtained an injunction. See Pierce County Code Chapter 5. The licensing requirements for dancers and managers are slightly different, as are the privacy concerns they raise.
But the issues are the same, and the outcome is the same. For clarity this order will refer to the plaintiffs as "dancers" unless the context requires otherwise. Plaintiffs sued seeking to temporarily and permanently enjoin the disclosure—not just to Van Vleet, but to any member of the general public. They argue that the PRA's privacy exception is not broad enough to prevent that disclosure—as Anderson apparently determined—but that disclosure would violate their constitutional rights to privacy and free expression.
The Court held a hearing and granted a preliminary injunction enjoining the disclosure. Plaintiffs now seek a declaration that the PRA is unconstitutional as applied to them, and a permanent injunction barring disclosure of their license information to all members of the general public. They claim that disclosure would lead to stalking, harassment, blackmail, and injury to relationships and future employment prospects.
Van Vleet appeared at the hearing and opposing the preliminary injunction. He claimed that he had a First Amendment right to access the information so that he could pray for the Plaintiffs, by name. Plaintiffs also seek certification of a class of all licensed dancers and managers in Pierce County. That Motion will be resolved in a separate Order.
Van Vleet has not responded to the Motion. The Attorney General filed an amicus brief [Dkt. The State takes no position on whether the Constitution does, in fact, preclude disclosure of the dancers' licensing information in response to PRA requests like the one made by Van Vleet. Summary judgment is appropriate when, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue of material fact that would preclude summary judgment as a matter of law.
