Governor's Office v. Office of Open Records, Aplt.
626 Pa. 437
| Pa. | 2014Background
- On March 7, 2012 Sean Donahue emailed a Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) request to the Office of the Governor (OG); a non–open-records employee received it first and the OG’s open-records officer received it March 12. OG responded March 19.
- Donahue appealed to the Office of Open Records (OOR), which held the request was "deemed denied" because, in OOR's view, the 5-business-day response clock in 65 P.S. § 67.901 starts when any agency employee first receives a request (March 7).
- OOR nevertheless upheld OG’s substantive denials; OG appealed to Commonwealth Court (quashed for lack of standing) and separately filed a declaratory-judgment action in Commonwealth Court challenging OOR’s interpretation of § 901.
- Commonwealth Court denied OOR’s preliminary objections, exercised original jurisdiction, and ruled that § 901’s plain text starts the 5-day period only when the agency’s open-records officer receives the request.
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed: OG had standing to sue, Commonwealth Court properly exercised original jurisdiction, and the 5-day period begins when the open-records officer receives the request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (OG) | Defendant's Argument (OOR) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to bring declaratory action | OG said OOR's interpretation directly and immediately injures agencies by shortening response time, increasing deemed denials and administrative burden. | OOR said OG suffered no concrete harm (it prevailed below); mere disagreement with OOR’s dicta is insufficient for standing and any harm is speculative. | OG has standing: OOR’s adjudication and defended position create a direct, immediate, and cognizable impact on OG and other Commonwealth agencies. |
| Commonwealth Court original jurisdiction / exhaustion | OG argued pre-enforcement declaratory relief was necessary to avoid multiplicity of suits and to define OOR’s authority; waiting for an adverse, aggrieved appeal would be inefficient. | OOR argued statutory appeals (Chapter 13) must be exhausted and declaratory relief in original jurisdiction is inappropriate absent constitutional issues or lack of administrative remedy. | Commonwealth Court properly exercised original jurisdiction: OOR is a Commonwealth agency and declaratory review was appropriate given the inadequate alternative (risk of duplicative litigation) and the practical effects of OOR’s position. |
| Construction of 65 P.S. § 67.901 — when 5-day clock begins | OG: plain text, context (§§ 502, 703), and administration require the clock begin when the open-records officer receives the request. | OOR: statute references agency receipt generally; combined provisions (employees must forward requests) show the clock should start when any employee first receives a request; PGCB supports that earlier trigger. | Court held § 901 is clear and unambiguous: the 5-business-day response period begins when the agency’s open-records officer receives the written request. |
| Precedent / policy concerns (PGCB and practical effects) | OG warned OOR’s rule would create burdens and "shotgun" filings; OG relied on plain text rather than PGCB dicta. | OOR invoked PGCB and policy (transparency, predictable appeal windows) to argue its reading avoids gaming and fits other RTKL provisions. | PGCB is distinguishable (different facts and issues). Policy concerns do not override clear statutory text; presume agencies act in good faith and legislature should fix statutory gaps. |
Key Cases Cited
- William Penn Parking Garage, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 346 A.2d 269 (Pa. 1975) (standing requires a substantial, direct, and immediate interest)
- Arsenal Coal Co. v. Commonwealth, 477 A.2d 1333 (Pa. 1984) (permitting pre-enforcement challenge where regulation imposes immediate burdens and administrative remedy is inadequate)
- Bayada Nurses, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 8 A.3d 866 (Pa. 2010) (agency interpretation subject to pre-enforcement review when delay would impose significant costs or sanctions)
- Pennsylvania State Educ. Ass’n v. Commonwealth, 50 A.3d 1263 (Pa. 2012) (original-jurisdiction declaratory action against OOR appropriate where administrative remedy is inadequate and constitutional issues implicated)
- Pennsylvania Gaming Control Bd. v. Office of Open Records, 48 A.3d 503 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (adjudication addressing validity/form of RTKL requests; court here distinguishes PGCB as not resolving § 901’s timing)
- Levy v. Senate, 65 A.3d 361 (Pa. 2013) (RTKL’s transparency goals and statutory interpretation principles)