311 A.3d 1230
Pa. Commw. Ct.2024Background
- James Gray, an inmate, submitted a Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) request to the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office (DAO) seeking information on the release and distribution of the racially discriminatory Jack McMahon jury selection training tape.
- The DAO denied Gray’s original six-part request, stating it could not locate responsive records.
- Gray appealed to the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records (OOR), which ordered the DAO to release the records, finding the DAO hadn’t done a sufficiently good faith search.
- During appeals, Gray withdrew his request as to five of the six items; he maintained only Item 3, seeking a list of all individuals/agencies who received the McMahon Tape.
- The trial court affirmed OOR’s order—that DAO must comply with the entire request, not just Item 3—prompting DAO’s appeal to the Commonwealth Court.
- The Commonwealth Court evaluated whether the requests were moot as to the withdrawn items, and whether DAO satisfied its duty regarding Item 3.
Issues
| Issue | Gray's Argument | DAO's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appeal moot as to withdrawn items | Controversy persists; withdrawal ineffective | Items withdrawn so no live controversy | Withdrawals rendered those issues moot |
| Whether DAO required to search/provide records no longer requested | DAO should search and provide | No duty for moot/withdrawn requests | No obligation to act on withdrawn items |
| Whether DAO met burden re: Item 3's record existing | DAO should have a master list or complete record listing recipients | No such record exists; complied with search duty | DAO met burden; no existing list to provide |
| Definition of "good faith search" under RTKL | Requires broader or more exhaustive inquiry | Search as conducted, including supervisor inquiry, was reasonable | "Good faith" satisfied; exhaustive physical search not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Chester Water Auth. v. Dep’t of Cmty. & Econ. Dev., 249 A.3d 1106 (Pa. 2021) (mootness standards in RTKL appeals; appeal becomes moot once records are provided or request withdrawn)
- Hodges v. Pa. Dep’t of Health, 29 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (standard for agency’s burden to prove nonexistence of requested record)
- Off. of the Dist. Att’y of Phila. v. Bagwell, 155 A.3d 1119 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (sufficiency and specificity of RTKL requests)