Indiana University of Pennsylvania v. Loomis
2011 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 290
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2011Background
- Loomis, a journalism professor, requested records from the Foundation for Indiana University of Pennsylvania relating to construction and fundraising for 2003-2010 (Kovalchick Complex, Residential Revival, Form 990, and Foundation Board minutes).
- The University obtained the records from the Foundation but redacted signatures, non-functional content, donor identities, and predecisional deliberations; a copy fee of $118 was demanded.
- Loomis appealed to the OOR challenging redactions and asserting East Stroudsburg University v. OOR supported disclosure; he also claimed failure to allow inspection without prepayment was unreasonable.
- OOR required most redactions to be preserved and asked for additional information; University did not respond; University appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
- The core legal issue centered on whether copying fees must be paid before access is granted to records in the possession of a third party under RTKL, and whether the OOR erred in directing disclosure absent payment.
- Court reversed the OOR, holding that Loomis’s failure to pay the copying fee precluded access and thus the OOR should have denied the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fee prepayment as condition to access | Loomis argued access should not be contingent on prepayment; the OOR erred. | University and RTKL allow withholding until fees are paid; denial proper. | OOR erred; payment required; access denied. |
| Effect of third-party possession on disclosure | Requester relied on East Stroudsburg Univ. v. OOR to compel disclosure of third-party records. | RTKL permits withholding access until fees are paid; third-party records subject to agency rules. | RTKL allows withholding pending payment; disclosure not required. |
Key Cases Cited
- East Stroudsburg Univ. v. Office of Open Records, 995 A.2d 496 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (records related to fundraising discloseable when directly related to governmental function)
- Prison Legal News v. Office of Open Records, 992 A.2d 942 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (agency may withhold access until fee is paid)
- Heim v. Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Fund, 23 A.3d 506 (Pa. 2011) (reflects appeal standards for RTKL issues)
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 990 A.2d 813 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (courts independently review OOR decisions; fact-finding authority)