J.D. Grine v. County of Centre, The McShane Firm, LLC and T.C. Tanski Appeal of: County of Centre K. Gillette-Walker v. County of Centre, Shubin Law Office, P.C., and S.P. McGraw Appeal of: County of Centre
138 A.3d 88
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Requesters sought cell-phone call/text metadata showing communications between District Attorney Stacy Parks Miller (and staff) and two judges (Judge Grine and MDJ Gillette-Walker). The County paid some judges’ Verizon bills and thus had phone invoices and created a color-coded spreadsheet revealing call partner identifiers.
- The County’s Open Records Officer responded to RTKL requests without notifying judicial open-records officers and partially released telephone identifiers (not content or costs). Gillette-Walker used a personal phone and did not appear on County invoices; Grine used the County plan.
- The judges sought and obtained preliminary injunctions from the Centre County Court of Common Pleas, enjoining the County from responding to RTKL requests for “judicial records” and directing the County to refer such requests to the judicial agency’s open-records officer.
- The County appealed, arguing the phone records were County financial records and thus public under the RTKL, and that the injunction prevented it from fulfilling statutory disclosure duties.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed (with modification), holding that records that document activities of judicial personnel are “records of a judicial agency,” requiring the County to defer and direct such RTKL requests to the judicial agency’s designated open-records officer to avoid separation-of-powers problems; financial records of judicial agencies remain public but must be processed under judicial procedures (Pa. R.J.A. 509 and RTKL rules).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the County could respond to RTKL requests for phone records that also document judges’ activity | Judges: Phone records documenting judges’ communications are records of a judicial agency and must be handled by the judiciary’s open-records officer to preserve separation of powers | County: Phone invoices are County financial records in its possession and therefore presumptively public under the RTKL; it had authority to disclose | Held: When records document activity of judicial personnel, they are records of a judicial agency; the County must direct such requests to the judicial agency’s open-records officer (affirmed, modified injunction) |
| Whether dual-status records (both County and judicial) may be disclosed by the County under County procedures | Judges: Dual status does not permit County to control disclosure because judicial supervisory authority and separate procedures govern access to judicial records | County: The RTKL requires disclosure of financial records regardless of which agency holds them; no clear harm in County responding | Held: Dual status matters — procedural differences and separation-of-powers concerns require directing requests to the judicial agency; County should not independently respond when records obviously document judicial activity |
| Whether telephone identifiers must be disclosed | Judges: Caller/recipient identifiers are personal identification information and may be protected; the County’s partial disclosure risked revealing protected numbers | County: Disclosed identifiers were part of financial/billing records and did not reveal communication content | Held: Telephone numbers constitute protected personal identification information under RTKL and should be redacted; prior caselaw supports redaction of caller identifiers |
| Whether a preliminary injunction was appropriate | Judges: Injunction necessary to prevent irreparable harm to judicial supervision, RTKL statutory scheme, and privacy interests | County: Injunction improperly prevents County from fulfilling RTKL duties and is overbroad | Held: Preliminary injunction was proper (irreparable harm shown); modified to require directing requests for “records of a judicial agency” to judicial open-records officers while recognizing judicial financial records remain public under appropriate procedures |
Key Cases Cited
- Allegheny Cnty. Dep’t of Admin. Servs. v. A Second Chance, Inc., 13 A.3d 1025 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (en banc) (defines when a record is “of” an agency: it must document a transaction or activity of the agency)
- Meguerian v. Office of Attorney Gen., 86 A.3d 924 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (subject-matter test for whether emails/records are agency records)
- Eiseman v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 125 A.3d 19 (Pa. 2015) (construing “financial records” to include records dealing with disbursement of agency funds)
- PG Publ’g Co. v. Cnty. of Washington, 638 A.2d 422 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (itemized telephone bills as public financial records under predecessor statute)
- Tribune-Review Publ’g Co. v. Bodack, 875 A.2d 402 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (itemized cell phone records are public but caller identifiers may be redacted); aff’d, 961 A.2d 110 (Pa. 2008)
- Office of the Governor v. Raffle, 65 A.3d 1105 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (government-issued cellular numbers are personal identification information under RTKL and may be redacted)
- Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna Cnty. v. Office of Open Records, 2 A.3d 810 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (records produced by a judicial employee are records of a judicial agency; separation-of-powers limits OOR jurisdiction over judicial records)
- Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (U.S. 1978) (courts have supervisory power over their own records and files)