City of Allentown v. Brenan
2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 213
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- City appeals RTKL denial after OOR determination that federal discovery order did not bar records; RTKL presumes public records but exempts records under other law or judicial order; Judge Hey’s Oct. 25, 2010 order denied additional discovery as untimely and did not state records were precluded from disclosure; Requester sought records related to Allentown Women’s Center and related parties from June 1, 2010 onward; OOR granted access, noting discovery posture does not automatically preclude RTKL requests; trial court affirmed OOR’s final determination; City argues separation-of-powers and preclusion under Judge Hey’s order; We affirm the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Judge Hey’s Oct. 25, 2010 order precluded RTKL access | Brenan contends order exempted from RTKL | City contends order precluded disclosure under RTKL §102 | No preclusion; order did not state records were exempt from RTKL |
| Whether RTKL §305/§102 exemptions apply given the discovery order | RTKL records should be accessible despite ongoing federal case | Exemption applies because of judicial order/ongoing litigation | Exemptions not triggered; order did not preclude disclosure |
| Whether separation of powers invalidates RTKL access | None specific to RTKL denial; no new grounds raised | Separation of powers precludes disclosure per denial | Separation-of-powers argument improperly raised; not a basis for denial |
| Whether RTKL access can be had where federal discovery is ongoing | RTKL not automatically precluded by pending litigation | Discovery materials could be protected | RTKL access permitted absent explicit judicial preclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 990 A.2d 813 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (exemptions must be narrowly construed in RTKL)
- Signature Information Solutions, LLC v. Aston Township, 995 A.2d 510 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (denial of RTKL must state the specific reason; no new grounds on appeal)
- Chester Community Charter School v. Hardy, 38 A.3d 1079 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2012) (motive for denial not valid; addresses denial grounds under RTKL)