204 A.3d 534
Pa. Commw. Ct.2019Background
- ALDEA submitted a July 27, 2017 RTKL request to Berks County seeking records related to the Berks County Residential Center (BCRC), including attorney correspondence and visitation-area video.
- County responded it had no records for some items, found one item insufficiently specific, and withheld others asserting attorney-client privilege, work product, internal deliberation and non-criminal investigation exemptions; it produced some documents.
- ALDEA appealed to OOR; OOR ordered nine (later six) allegedly privileged records submitted for in camera review despite County objections; County complied but argued OOR lacked authority to order sua sponte in camera review and that non-lawyer OOR staff could not lawfully inspect privileged materials.
- OOR issued a Final Determination (Feb. 9, 2018) granting disclosure of some Item 2 documents, upholding exemptions as to others, and rejecting the County’s argument that former Section 406 of The County Code preempted the RTKL. ALDEA appealed to Berks County Court of Common Pleas.
- County filed this original-jurisdiction petition in Commonwealth Court asserting: (I) The County Code preempts the RTKL as to counties (declaratory relief); (II) OOR lacks authority to order sua sponte in camera review and non-lawyer review violates the RTKL/Supreme Court rulemaking power (declaratory/injunctive relief); and (III) request that Commonwealth Court exercise ancillary jurisdiction to hear the County’s appeal of the OOR Final Determination.
- Commonwealth Court sustained OOR’s preliminary objections: dismissed Counts I and II (failure to exhaust statutory remedies and failure to state a claim), and transferred Count III (appeal of Final Determination) to Berks County Court of Common Pleas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (County) | Defendant's Argument (OOR/ALDEA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether County may bring declaratory judgment in Commonwealth Court that The County Code (former §406) preempts the RTKL as to counties | County sought statewide declaratory relief that §406 preempted RTKL and that RTKL does not apply to counties | OOR/ALDEA argued County must exhaust RTKL statutory remedy (appeal to court of common pleas) and not short-circuit appeal process | Dismissed Count I for failure to exhaust statutory remedy; Act 154 amended §406 to make RTKL applicable to counties prospectively, removing need for statewide declaratory relief |
| Whether OOR lacks authority to order sua sponte in camera review or to allow non-appeals-officer staff to view submitted records (including non-attorneys) | County argued OOR exceeded statutory authority and that non-lawyer review invades Supreme Court’s power over regulation of the practice of law and risks privilege waiver | OOR/ALDEA cited precedent recognizing OOR’s duty to develop an adequate record, including in camera review, and statutory authority for Executive Director and staff oversight/assistance | Sustained demurrer to Count II: OOR may order in camera review sua sponte to develop the record; RTKL authorizes Executive Director oversight and staff assistance; non-attorney review does not, as pleaded, violate Article V authority or automatically waive privilege |
| Whether Commonwealth Court may exercise ancillary jurisdiction over County’s appeal of the OOR Final Determination | County sought to have ancillary jurisdiction permit Commonwealth Court to review Final Determination along with its original-jurisdiction claims | OOR/ALDEA argued ancillary jurisdiction requires an underlying original-jurisdiction claim; without viable Counts I–II ancillary jurisdiction is improper | Count III transferred to Court of Common Pleas of Berks County because Commonwealth Court lacked an original-jurisdiction anchor for ancillary jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Office of Governor v. Donahue, 98 A.3d 1223 (Pa. 2014) (discusses OOR as Commonwealth agency and limits on original-jurisdiction suits challenging OOR rulings)
- East Coast Vapor, LLC v. Pennsylvania Department of Revenue, 189 A.3d 504 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (exhaustion of statutory remedies doctrine in administrative-review context)
- Keystone ReLeaf LLC v. Pennsylvania Department of Health, 186 A.3d 505 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (exhaustion doctrine and its exceptions)
- Office of Open Records v. Center Township, 95 A.3d 354 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (OOR authority to review claimed-privileged records in camera)
- Township of Worcester v. Office of Open Records, 129 A.3d 44 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (OOR duty to develop an adequate record and in camera review authority)
- Highmark Inc. v. Voltz, 163 A.3d 485 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (appeals officer discretion to develop record, including in camera review)
- UnitedHealthcare of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, 187 A.3d 1046 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (affirming OOR authority to compel in camera review)
- Arneson v. Wolf, 117 A.3d 374 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (en banc) (Executive Director’s quasi-judicial oversight role at OOR)