DAGES v. Carbon County
44 A.3d 89
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- Dages appeals pro se from Carbon County's open-records denial of his RTK request.
- Dages requested 'case law' cited by the County chair as authorizing the Project.
- County denied disclosure claiming attorney-client privilege and attorney-work-product privilege; referenced predecisional and confidential protections.
- County submitted affidavits from the chair and solicitor detailing confidential legal research and advice.
- Appeals officer affirmed privilege; trial court affirmed; Dages appeals to Commonwealth Court.
- Court holds information is privileged and not a public record under the Law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the requested case law protected by attorney-client privilege? | Dages contends affidavits are self-serving; seeks disclosure of non-public case law. | County asserts case law qualifies as privileged communications. | Yes; case law protected by attorney-client privilege. |
| Does the case law also fall under attorney work-product privilege? | Not explicitly addressed beyond privilege claim. | Work-product may apply to prepared material. | Unnecessary to reach work-product; privilege suffices. |
| Did the County establish privilege and shift burden appropriately? | Dages challenged reliance on affidavits. | Affidavits show confidential legal communications. | Appeals officer and trial court correctly applied privilege; Dages failed to rebut. |
| What is the proper scope of review for RTK privilege determinations? | Not explicitly stated beyond challenging the affidavits. | Law requires de novo review on privilege issue. | Sworn affidavits supported privilege; record supports denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 990 A.2d 813 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (promotes access; records presumed public unless privileged)
- Gillard v. AIG Ins. Co., 609 Pa. 65 (Pa. 2011) (broadly preserves attorney-client communications in PA)
- Levy v. Senate of Pa., 34 A.3d 243 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (articulates scope of privilege in PA RTK context)
- Bd. of Supervisors of Milford Twp. v. McGogney, 13 A.3d 569 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (identifies client for purpose of privilege in public entities)
- Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947) (origin of the attorney-work-product doctrine)