329 A.3d 864
Pa. Commw. Ct.2025Background
- Ajani Posey, an inmate, requested the full names of six SCI-Houtzdale employees under Pennsylvania's Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) for alleged legal purposes.
- Department of Corrections (DOC) granted first names for two non-corrections officer employees but denied providing first names for four corrections officers, asserting security and privacy exemptions.
- Posey appealed the partial denial to the Office of Open Records (OOR), arguing the DOC did not meet its burden and that the security rationale was inconsistent and not supported by evidence.
- OOR upheld the DOC’s denial, relying on persuasive (but not precedential) past Court and OOR decisions which purportedly allow withholding corrections officers’ first names without additional evidentiary support.
- On further appeal, the Commonwealth Court reversed OOR, holding that DOC failed to meet its evidentiary burden under the RTKL.
Issues
| Issue | Posey's Argument | DOC's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are corrections officers’ first names exempt under RTKL’s personal security exception if DOC provides no evidence? | Names aren’t categorically exempt and DOC provided no evidence; exemption must be proven, not presumed. | Past incidents and OOR precedent support per se exemption without further evidence. | No per se exemption; DOC must offer specific evidence supporting the claimed risk. |
| Must an agency provide records absent adequate proof for exemptions? | Denial without evidence is legally insufficient, especially where similar names were disclosed. | OOR and some Court cases have previously affirmed exemptions without new affidavits. | Yes; agency must meet burden by preponderance with more than speculation or citation. |
| Does the intent for litigation or requester's status matter under RTKL? | Litigation need justifies records; denial prejudices Posey’s due process rights. | Purpose of request is irrelevant; RTKL access not determined by requester’s intent. | Intent is irrelevant to the applicability of exemptions under RTKL. |
| Can OOR rely on unpublished or non-precedential decisions as the basis for exemption? | Stein is not binding; denial based solely on such precedent is improper. | Stein and prior OOR decisions justify categorical denials for security reasons. | OOR misapplied non-precedential cases; binding evidence is needed for exemption. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bagwell v. Office of the District Attorney, 155 A.3d 1119 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (describes RTKL’s presumption of public records and burden on agency to prove exemption)
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 75 A.3d 453 (Pa. 2013) (explains judicial review of OOR’s RTKL determinations)
- ACLU v. Pennsylvania State Police, 232 A.3d 654 (Pa. 2020) (explains burden of proof for record exemptions under RTKL)
- Fultz v. State Employees' Retirement System, 107 A.3d 860 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (agencies must present actual evidence for RTKL exemptions)
- Borough of Pottstown v. Suber-Aponte, 202 A.3d 173 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (explains standard for a "substantial and demonstrable" risk)
- California Borough v. Rothey, 185 A.3d 456 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (rejects speculation as basis for RTKL exemption)
- In re Melamed, 287 A.3d 491 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022) (emphasizes narrow construction of exemptions under RTKL)
- Office of the Governor v. Davis, 122 A.3d 1185 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (affidavits or evidence generally required for exemptions)