Giurintano v. Department of General Services
20 A.3d 613
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2011Background
- Requester sought records relating to the DGS-LSA contract for telephone translation services; requested independent contractor agreements with interpreters and the names of interpreters.
- DGS denied for being not directly related to the Contract (interpreter agreements with non-performing interpreters) and for interpreter names (claimed confidential proprietary information).
- OOR held that (a) agreements with interpreters who did not perform are not directly related and need not be disclosed at this time, and (b) interpreter-identifying information is confidential proprietary information exempt from disclosure.
- Requester appealed to the Commonwealth Court; the court reviewed under its appellate role with narrative findings.
- Court affirmed the OOR’s partial grant of relief and denial of disclosure of non-performing agreements and interpreter-identifying information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether non-performing interpreter agreements are directly related to the Contract | Giurintano argues they are directly related to the Contract | DGS/LSA argue they are not directly related since interpreters did not perform | Not directly related; disclosure not required |
| Whether interpreter-identifying information is confidential proprietary information | Names should be disclosed; not confidential | Identifying info is confidential proprietary and would harm competition | Identifying information exempt from disclosure |
| Whether a hearing is required or proper to cross-examine affidavits | Requester seeks a hearing | Section 1102(a)(2) precludes appeal of a denial of a hearing | No hearing remand required; no appeal right to a hearing |
| Proper application of 506(d)(1) to records in the possession of a contractor | All contractor records should be public | Only directly related records must be disclosed | Records with non-performing interpreters not directly related; not compelled to disclose |
| Scope of OOR’s authority to order disclosure or redaction | OOR’s determinations upheld; disclosures limited as held |
Key Cases Cited
- East Stroudsburg Univ. Foundation v. Office of Open Records, 995 A.2d 496 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (limits access to records directly related to governmental function under 506(d)(1))
- The Morning Call, Inc. v. Lower Saucon Township, 627 A.2d 297 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1993) (precedent rejected for pre-506(d)(1) reasoning; not controlling here)
- Jones v. Office of Open Records, 993 A.2d 339 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (hearing decisions under 1102(a)(2) not appealable)