Department of Corrections v. Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania
2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 20
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- Department of Corrections appeals a Final Determination by the Office of Open Records regarding two RTKL requests (Nos. 12 and 13) from the Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania.
- Request Nos. 12 and 13 sought numerical data about inmates in RHU/SMU related to psychiatric observations, treatment, suicide watch, self-harm, restraints, and involuntary medications over the past two years.
- The Department denied that such records existed in its possession, custody, or control and submitted declarations from its officials to support this.
- OOR ordered production of responsive records with redactions of personal and treatment-identifying information, subject to exemptions.
- Department sought reconsideration arguing exemptions could render materials totally exempt and that the request did not seek the actual forms; OOR reaffirmed with redactions.
- On appeal, the court held that there were no existing records in the requested format and reversed the OOR, clarifying that agencies are not required to create or reformat records that do not exist.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the OOR correctly order production of non-existent format records? | Department: no existing records; not required to create or compile new formats. | Department: must not be compelled to create records or reorganize data; no existing records in requested format. | OOR erred; no records in the requested format exist, so production not required. |
| May an agency be compelled to provide data not originally requested or identified? | Requestor: can examine records and compile data even if forms were not requested initially. | Department: the scope is defined by the initial request; cannot be broadened on appeal. | No; initial request controls, and the agency cannot be compelled to create or discover non-requested formats. |
| Has the Requestor waived exemptions by not raising them in the denial? | Requestor: exemptions may be raised later; failure to raise should not bar access if records exist. | Department: must raise exemptions in denial; failure to do so constitutes waiver. | Waiver applies to exemptions not raised in the denial; here, the court held the OOR erred overall, addressing existence rather than waiver-specific issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennsylvania State Police v. Office of Open Records, 995 A.2d 515 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (OOR cannot modify a request; requester must specify records)
- Mollick v. Township of Worcester, 32 A.3d 859 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2011) (responsibility lies with requester to specify records; sampling not allowed to cure deficiencies)
- Signature Information Solutions, LLC v. Aston Township, 995 A.2d 510 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (waiver of grounds not raised in denial; appeal must list grounds)
- Vartan v. Department of General Services, 550 A.2d 1375 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1988) (form of request determines scope; agency must identify records)
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 990 A.2d 813 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (appellate review standard; independent fact-finding allowed)
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 995 A.2d 510 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (RTKL administrative process and scope of denial interpretations)