Commonwealth v. Legere
50 A.3d 260
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- DEP seeks review of OOR's December 5, 2011 order requiring production of RTKL records responsive to Legere and Times-Tribune requests.
- Legere filed RTKL requests on September 6, 2011 to three DEP regional offices for Section 208 letters and related orders.
- Regional offices partially granted and denied portions, stating requests were not sufficiently specific and identifying exemptions.
- Legere appealed; the OOR consolidated the appeals and found the requests sufficiently specific and that exemptions were not shown.
- DEP challenged on five grounds, including specificity, burden, Section 901 searches, Section 705 exceptions, and exemption evidence.
- The court affirming held that the OOR properly ordered production and that DEP failed to prove exemptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Legere's RTKL request sufficiently specific? | Legere: request clearly identifies Section 208 letters and related orders. | DEP: request is overbroad or not specific enough. | Yes; OOR properly found sufficiently specific. |
| Should burden on DEP determine sufficiency of specificity? | Legere: burden not to render overbroad; specificity stands. | DEP: burden should render request insufficient. | No; burden does not render request overbroad. |
| Did DEP's good faith-search affidavits suffice under Section 901? | Legere: search must locate records in DEP possession; affidavits were incomplete. | DEP: good faith search conducted via databases and institutional memory. | No; OOR was correct to order production; affidavits insufficient to prove exemptions. |
| Does Section 705 excuse DEP from producing records? | Legere: no; not seeking non-existent records or reorganization. | DEP: Section 705 allows not creating or reorganizing records. | No; Section 705 does not excuse production. |
| Was there sufficient evidentiary support to withhold under RTKL exemptions? | Legere: exemptions not adequately supported for all records. | DEP: exemptions apply and were appropriately asserted. | No; DEP failed to offer adequate exemption evidence; OOR was correct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mollick v. Township of Worcester, 32 A.3d 859 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (overbreadth concerns require specificity in RTKL requests)
- Pennsylvania State Police v. Office of Open Records, 995 A.2d 515 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (not overbroad where scope tied to specific records)
- Easton Area Sch. Dist. v. Baxter, 35 A.3d 1259 (Pa.Cmwlth.2012) (distinct universe of records can be sufficiently specific)
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 990 A.2d 813 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (RTKL access purpose and public accountability)
- Pennsylvania Gaming Control Bd. v. Office of Open Records, 48 A.3d 503 (Pa.Cmwlth.2012) (statutory burden considerations in RTKL)
- Koken v. Reliance Insurance Company, 586 Pa. 269 (2006) (plain language controls where statute is unambiguous)
- Hodges v. Dep’t of Health, 29 A.3d 1190 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (scope of review for OOR determinations)