Askew v. Pennsylvania Office of the Governor
65 A.3d 989
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Requester, pro se, sought records from the Governor’s Office under RTKL regarding jurisdiction over a location and related legislation.
- Request specified timeframe broadly from 1787 to July 8, 2003 and referenced Adams v. United States and 40 U.S.C. § 255.
- Office denied as not sufficiently specific under RTKL § 703; claimed records from 2008 were no longer in custody and that legal research would be required.
- OOR upheld the denial, agreeing the request was vague, overly broad, and required legal analysis to identify responsive documents.
- Requester filed an appeal; the Commonwealth Court reviewed de novo and conducted its own assessment of specificity.
- Court affirmed the OOR, holding the request lacked specificity and that it would require legal research to determine what records, if any, exist.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the RTKL §703 specificity standard was met. | Request was specific to locate documents. | Request was open-ended and未specific, requiring legal analysis. | Lacked specificity; court affirmed denial. |
| Whether the timeframe rendered the request too broad. | Timeframe was clear enough to identify records. | Timeframe unduly broad and not limited to a workable period. | Overly broad timeframe; not specified. |
| Whether seeking records that involve providing/relinquishing/accepting jurisdiction requires legal research. | Office simply locate a specific law or document; no legal opinion needed. | Determining relevant documents involves legal interpretation of jurisdictional language. | Requests requiring legal research are unspecific. |
| Whether the request necessitates analysis of Adams and 40 U.S.C. § 255 to identify responsive records. | Search should identify the specific documents without requiring legal analysis. | Identifying responsive records would require substantial legal research. | Unspecifically requiring legal analysis; affirmed denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mollick v. Township of Worcester, 32 A.3d 859 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (limits timeframe to sustain specificity; broad requests are improper)
- Montgomery County v. Iverson, 50 A.3d 281 (Pa.Cmwlth.2012) (contextual specificity assessment of RTKL requests)
- Pennsylvania State Police v. Office of Open Records, 995 A.2d 515 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (overbreadth when request seeks all records of any kind)
- Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency v. Ali, 43 A.3d 532 (Pa.Cmwlth.2012) (unspecific when requesting all correspondence; too broad)
- Department of Environmental Protection v. Legere, 50 A.3d 260 (Pa.Cmwlth.2012) (some requests are sufficiently specific when documents are statute-based)