Carey v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 30
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Requester sought records about the 2008–2012 mass inmate transfer to Michigan from Pennsylvania DOC.
- DOC denied the RTKL request in full for insufficient specificity and various exemptions.
- OOR found the request sufficiently specific and denied access only under the Public Safety exception.
- Court reviews RTKL exemptions narrowly and may supplement record with additional evidence.
- Court directs DOC to supplement its affidavit regarding security-related exceptions within 60 days.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the RTKL request sufficiently specific? | Carey contends parts lack specificity; DOC’s burden improper. | DOC argued parts 1–5 are vague or burdensome. | Request sufficiently specific; OOR affirmed on specificity. |
| Does Part 2's request for raters/authorizees trigger Personal Security protection? | Identities of those who authorized transfers are sensitive but not categorically excluded. | Disclosing names poses substantial security risk. | Part 2 protection affirmed; records redacted entirely under Personal Security. |
| Do the Public Safety records meet the statutory test to be withheld? | Redaction can render records non-threatening; disclosure of some may be allowed. | Torma affidavit shows risk to safety if disclosed. | Public Safety exception not suitably proven; supplementation required. |
| Are Noncriminal Investigative or Predecisional Deliberative exemptions applicable? | No targeted noncriminal or deliberative records sought. | Various records fall under these exemptions by their nature. | No merit for both exemptions; not applicable on current record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Purcell v. Gov’t of Pa., 35 A.3d 811 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (RTKL exemptions to be narrowly construed)
- Woods v. Office of Open Records, 998 A.2d 665 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (deliberative material protections contextualized by records)
- Adams v. Pa. State Police, 51 A.3d 322 (Pa.Cmwlth.2012) (professional affidavits require concrete link to risk)
- Scolforo v. Pa. State Troopers, 18 A.3d 435 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (threat-based redaction framework in RTKL)
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 990 A.2d 813 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (RTKL evidence and process considerations for review)
- Lutz v. City of Philadelphia, 6 A.3d 669 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (substantial and demonstrable risk standard)
- Kaplin v. Lower Merion Twp., 19 A.3d 1209 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (deliberative content and internality requirements)
- Vartan v. Interbranch, 557 Pa. 390, 733 A.2d 1258 (1999) (deliberative process framework for predecisional records)
- Interbranch Comm’n on Juvenile Justice, 605 Pa. 224, 988 A.2d 1269 (2010) (deliberative and internal record protections applied)