Chambersburg Area School District v. M. Dorsey
97 A.3d 1281
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- In July 2011 Maria Dorsey (Requester) sought records from Chambersburg Area School District concerning an afterschool program and related persons/entities; the District withheld 19 pages of emails as attorney-client privileged and provided limited records.
- Requester filed RTKL appeals with the OOR (January 2012) asserting a deemed denial; the OOR ordered disclosure, finding the District had not proven exemptions and noting no record of a prior appeal being docketed.
- The District petitioned for review in the trial court and produced the 19 withheld emails for in-camera review; the trial court initially withheld them as privileged but was later remanded for findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- After remand, the District disclosed 3,591 additional pages (April 2013) it had discovered nearly two years after the original request during unrelated federal-case discovery; Requester moved to supplement the record alleging bad faith; the trial court quashed that motion.
- The trial court (July 10, 2013) concluded the 19 emails were protected by attorney-client privilege and denied disclosure; the Commonwealth Court affirmed that privilege ruling but reversed the quash of the Motion to Supplement and remanded to determine whether the District made a good-faith search under the RTKL and whether penalties/fees are warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Dorsey) | Defendant's Argument (District) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether District waived attorney-client privilege by not raising it before the OOR | Waiver because privilege was not asserted before the OOR and no privilege log was provided | District raised privilege in submissions and to the trial court; privilege preserved for in-camera review | No waiver: privilege preserved; trial court was fact-finder on in-camera record |
| Whether due process defects (no privilege log; emails not on record pre-review) void privilege claim | Due process violated—no opportunity to oppose in-camera review and no privilege log => waiver | In-camera production was by agreement; affidavit and notice sufficed; privilege log unnecessary here | Due process not violated; in-camera review appropriate; privilege elements addressed by court |
| Whether the 19 emails meet the four-part attorney-client privilege test | Emails not shown to satisfy privilege elements and process defects undermine claim | Emails were communications seeking legal advice from solicitor; all four elements met | Held: Emails are protected by attorney-client privilege; disclosure denied |
| Whether trial court erred in quashing motion to supplement and failing to investigate bad faith (good-faith search under RTKL) | District’s late production of 3,591 pages shows its prior sworn statement was untrue and supports bad-faith/poor search; evidence material | District says the additional records were discovered during unrelated federal-case discovery and were produced immediately upon discovery; not willful withholding | Court: trial court abused discretion in quashing; remanded to determine whether District made a good-faith search and whether fees/penalties under RTKL are warranted; but no fees based on the 19 privileged emails since District prevailed on that issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 75 A.3d 453 (Pa. 2013) (reviewing court may act as factfinder and conduct de novo review; in-camera review permissible)
- Dages v. Carbon County, 44 A.3d 89 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (four-part test for attorney-client privilege)
- T.M. v. Elwyn, Inc., 950 A.2d 1050 (Pa. Super. 2008) (privilege claim can be challenged where no privilege log or explanation is provided)
- Commonwealth v. Hill, 16 A.3d 484 (Pa. 2011) (issues not raised in Rule 1925(b) statement are waived)