Capinski v. Upper Pottsgrove Township
2017 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 358
Pa. Commw. Ct.2017Background
- In July 2014 James Capinski submitted two Right-to-Know requests to Upper Pottsgrove Township seeking documents related to two escrows (attachments to requests identified historical settlements/complaint).
- The Township searched its records, found no responsive documents in its possession, and informed Capinski; he appealed to the Office of Open Records (OOR).
- OOR issued two final determinations (Sept. 30, 2014) finding the Township had no responsive records in its possession but directing the Township to obtain responsive records from third-party financial institutions if those institutions held them.
- Capinski did not appeal the OOR determinations; instead he filed a “Petition to Enforce” in Montgomery County Common Pleas on Jan. 21, 2015, seeking production, fees, and penalties; the trial court held an evidentiary hearing and denied relief, crediting the Township manager’s testimony that the requested bank records no longer exist and that the Township conducted a good-faith search.
- On appeal, the Commonwealth Court affirmed: it held that (1) a requester can use mandamus to enforce an OOR final determination when no appeal was filed, but (2) here the Township complied because the records do not exist and it performed a good-faith search; thus no relief, fees, or penalties were warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper procedural vehicle to enforce an OOR final determination | Capinski styled action as a "petition to enforce" authorized by 65 P.S. § 67.1302(a) | Township argued Section 1302(a) authorizes only merits review, not enforcement; court lacked jurisdiction over petitioner’s form | Court: mandamus (common-law) is an appropriate remedy to enforce an OOR final determination when no appeal was taken; "petition to enforce" is not the statutory 1302(a) review vehicle |
| Timeliness & notice of a Section 1302(a) filing | Capinski treated his filing as compliant | Township argued petition was untimely (filed >30 days) and lacked required service on OOR | Court: petition was not a Section 1302(a) petition; if it were, it would be untimely and deficient, but that does not bar a mandamus action filed within the six-month mandamus limitations period |
| Statute-of-limitations/service for enforcement action | Capinski filed Jan. 21, 2015 within six months of OOR final determination | Township contended procedural defects deprived the court of jurisdiction | Court: treated the filing as mandamus for purposes of limitations and service and found it timely under 42 Pa. C.S. § 5522(b) |
| Whether Township complied with OOR determination / existence of records | Capinski argued Township failed to produce records it previously provided in litigation and thus did not comply | Township produced evidence it searched municipal records and investigated successor banks; manager credibly testified the bank records no longer exist and the Township acted in good faith | Court: affirmed trial court crediting testimony; because responsive records do not exist, Township complied and mandamus relief was not warranted; no attorney fees or penalties awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- Willcox v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co., 55 A.2d 521 (Pa. 1947) (where there is a right there is a remedy; supports availability of common-law remedies)
- Delaware River Port Authority v. Thornburgh, 493 A.2d 1351 (Pa. 1985) (describing standards for mandamus to compel ministerial duties)
- Moore v. Office of Open Records, 992 A.2d 907 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (an agency cannot be required to produce a record that does not exist)
- Pennsylvania Dept. of Aging v. Lindberg, 469 A.2d 1012 (Pa. 1983) (discusses enforcement/appeal of agency orders and appellate jurisdictional issues)
- Pennsylvania Human Relations Comm’n v. Scranton School Dist., 507 A.2d 369 (Pa. 1986) (addressing proper procedural vehicles and appellate jurisdiction for enforcement of agency decisions)
- City of Pittsburgh v. Pa. Dep’t of Transp., 416 A.2d 461 (Pa. 1980) (mandamus used to enforce an order of a state agency)
- Uniontown Newspapers v. Dep’t of Corrections, 151 A.3d 1196 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (discusses possible enforcement routes for OOR disclosure orders and recognizes mandamus-like relief in ancillary jurisdiction)