J. Ali v. Philadelphia City Planning Commission
125 A.3d 92
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015Background
- Ali sought all public records 2003–present on 60th Street Corridor redevelopment from the City Planning Commission.
- Commission redacted copyright‑protected material held by the Partnership CDC (PCDC).
- PCDC affidavit claimed copyright ownership and potential competitive harm from disclosure.
- OOR issued Final Determination upholding the copyright redactions; trial court affirmed.
- Court reverses in part and affirms in part: records are public under RTKL but duplication may be limited; no attorney’s fees awarded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| RTKL exemption applicability for copyrighted materials | Ali: 305(a)(3) or 306 should not shield copies. | Commission: Copyright holder’s rights bar duplication; fair use not analyzed under RTKL. | Copyright not exempt/nonpublic; records are public but duplication may be limited by RTKL 3101.1. |
| Authority to interpret Copyright Act in RTKL appeal | Ali: OOR lacked fair use analysis or proper jurisdiction. | OOR/Trial Court can interpret federal statutes in RTKL context. | RTKL authorizes interpretation of federal law; fair use analysis not required here. |
| Attorneys’ fees under RTKL §1304(a) | Ali seeks fees for reversal. | No bad faith or unreasonable exemptions; fees not warranted. | Fees denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sherry v. Radnor Twp. Sch. Dist., 20 A.3d 515 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (FERPA exemption cited under RTKL Section 305(a)(3))
- Advancement Project v. Pa. Department of Transportation, 60 A.3d 891 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (RTKL records involving government-provided data and federal law interaction)
- Department of Labor & Industry v. Heltzel, 90 A.3d 823 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (OOR authority to interpret federal statutes related to public records)
- Weisberg v. U.S. Department of Justice, 631 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (FOIACopyright interplay; jurisdictional concerns when owner not party)