Bowling v. Office of Open Records
621 Pa. 133
| Pa. | 2013Background
- RTKL (effective 2009) presumes records are public; agency bears burden to prove exemptions by preponderance.
- RTKL created the Office of Open Records (OOR); most Commonwealth/local agencies have appeals officers; some decisions go to Chapter 13 courts.
- Commonwealth Court’s Bowling v. OOR held de novo review with broad scope and allowed expanding the record for review.
- OOR argued for deferential review under 2 Pa.C.S. §704 and to limit record scope; Rule 1551(a) was invoked to argue deference to the record.
- In the instant case, PEMA redacted recipient identities; OOR upheld redactions; Commonwealth Court reversed and remanded for narrower redactions.
- Court ultimately held that Chapter 13 courts conduct full de novo review with broad scope and may adopt appeals officer findings where appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for OOR determinations | Bowling supports de novo review | RTKL §1309 precludes 2 Pa.C.S. | De novo review with broad scope accepted |
| Scope of review and record expansion | Record expansion needed for review | Record limited to Section 1303(b) items | Record may be expanded; broad scope allowed |
| Role of OOR deference | OOR determinations deserve deference | Statutory scheme limits deference | Deference not required; de novo review confirmed |
| Due process and hearings before OOR | Need hearings for due process | RTKL opts for streamlined process | Due process concerns acknowledged; not requiring a full reversion to Title 2 procedures |
| Remand to OOR for additional findings | Remand unnecessary if record adequate | Remand appropriate when record insufficient | Remand permitted when needed to develop a proper record |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 15 A.3d 427 (Pa. 2011) (de novo review; broad scope; record expansion allowed)
- Hartman v. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 892 A.2d 899 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2006) (RTKA precedent on standard of review)
- LaValle v. Office of General Counsel, 769 A.2d 449 (Pa. 2001) (RTKA/precedent on administrative review)
- Borough of Churchill, 575 A.2d 550 (Pa. 1990) (rules on appellate procedure in statutory appeals)