Barkeyville Borough v. Stearns
35 A.3d 91
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- Requesters sought all emails and related communications from Borough officials and council minutes for 2010.
- Borough granted minutes but denied emails, citing prior representation that no emails existed.
- Requesters appealed to the OOR, which held emails in personal accounts used for Borough business were within Borough control.
- Hearing showed Stearns collected emails from personal computers; Council members admitted receiving Borough-related emails but claimed deletion or unfindability.
- Trial court affirmed OOR, held emails on personal accounts were records and not exempt, and awarded Requesters attorney fees.
- Borough appealed, challenging the public-record status of private-computer emails and the attorney-fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are emails on private computers public records under RTKL? | Requesters argue emails are records of Borough. | Borough contends private emails are private property/not of the Borough. | Private emails are records of the Borough; subject to disclosure. |
| Are the emails 'public records' under RTKL once deemed records? | Emails created/retained in connection with Borough business are public records. | Silberstein shows private emails may not be 'of' the Borough; exemptions may apply. | Emails are public records under RTKL; presumption applies and not exempt. |
| Did the trial court err in awarding attorney fees to Requesters? | Fees were proper given RTKL provisions. | No willful/disregard or frivolous action; Silberstein not controlling. | Trial court erred in awarding attorney fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Silberstein, 11 A.3d 629 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2011) (emails on personal computer may be non-public records if not 'of' the agency)
- Mollick v. Township of Worcester, 32 A.3d 859 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (emails on personal devices may be 'records' if created/retained in relation to township business)
- A Second Chance, Inc. v. Allegheny County, 13 A.3d 1025 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (distinguishes 'public record' scope and ownership concepts under RTKL)
- Office of the Governor v. Bari, 20 A.3d 634 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (clarifies interpretation of 'public record' under RTKL; later cited with Second Chance)
- Tribune-Review Publ'g Co. v. Westmoreland Cnty. Housing Auth., 574 Pa. 661 (2003) (possession theories under RTKL; constructive possession can create public-record presumption)