E. Drack v. Ms. J. Tanner, Open Records Officer and Newtown Twp.
172 A.3d 114
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- Requester Earle Drack sought records under the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) about ENRADD speed-timing devices used by Newtown Township and calibrated by third parties Davidheiser and YIS/Cowden.
- Township invoked a 30-day extension, failed to respond by the extended deadline, and the request was deemed denied; Drack appealed to the OOR, which found the Township had produced responsive records in its possession and ordered the Township to retrieve responsive records from Davidheiser and YIS/Cowden.
- Drack filed a mandamus complaint in trial court (seeking enforcement of the OOR determination and penalties for alleged bad faith) after the Township asserted the third parties had no additional responsive records; the Township filed preliminary objections (demurrer and failure to join necessary parties) attaching email affidavits.
- Trial court sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed Drack’s complaint with prejudice, relying in part on a persuasive unpublished prior panel decision (Drack I) finding substantially similar facts.
- Commonwealth Court reversed: it held the trial court improperly considered factual averments and exhibits outside the pleadings when resolving the demurrer, erred in concluding third parties were necessary parties, and remanded for further proceedings on both enforcement and bad-faith/fees issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly sustained a demurrer to Drack's mandamus/enforcement complaint | Drack: complaint alleges Township failed to comply with OOR order to retrieve third-party records and thus states a cause for mandamus/enforcement | Township: record shows it produced all responsive records and third parties have the records; demurrer proper because no relief is possible | Reversed — trial court improperly relied on facts outside the complaint; demurrer was inappropriate at pleading stage |
| Whether third parties (Davidheiser, YIS/Cowden) were necessary parties so complaint should be dismissed for failure to join | Drack: complaint seeks to compel Township to comply with OOR order, not direct relief against third parties | Township: cannot be forced to sue or compel private entities; third parties are necessary to grant relief | Reversed — third parties not necessary to adjudicate whether Township complied with OOR order; court may order Township to take actions short of suing third parties |
| Whether mandamus was the proper procedural vehicle to enforce an unappealed OOR final determination | Drack: used mandamus to enforce OOR order | Township: (implicit) relief beyond scope because documents lie with third parties | Court: mandamus (civil action) is an appropriate vehicle to enforce unappealed OOR determinations against local agencies (consistent with recent precedent) |
| Whether Drack pleaded entitlement to attorneys’ fees, costs, and civil penalties for bad faith | Drack: alleges Township acted in bad faith by not taking required steps to secure records | Township: acted in good faith and produced records in its possession; bad faith not established | Reversed — whether bad faith exists cannot be resolved on the pleadings; factual development required before awarding fees or penalties |
Key Cases Cited
- Uniontown Newspapers, Inc. v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 151 A.3d 1196 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (discusses enforcement of OOR determinations and procedural posture)
- Capinski v. Upper Pottsgrove Twp., 164 A.3d 601 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (holds civil action in mandamus is appropriate to enforce unappealed OOR determinations against local agencies)
- Martin v. Dep’t of Transp., 556 A.2d 969 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (demurrer cannot rely on facts outside the challenged pleading)
- Chadwick v. Dauphin Cnty. Office of the Coroner, 905 A.2d 600 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (elements and limits of mandamus relief)