J. Schneller v. Philadelphia District Attorney
J. Schneller v. Philadelphia District Attorney - 1313 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Aug 3, 2017Background
- James D. Schneller (Requester) sought all records relating to a private criminal complaint he filed (MC-51-CF-9000157-2014) from the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office (DA Office).
- The DA Office produced a set of records; Requester appealed both to the Office of Open Records (OOR) and to the DA-designated appeals officer, claiming additional responsive records (including electronic files and litigation files) were withheld.
- OOR and the DA appeals officer dismissed the appeals as moot after the DA Office submitted affidavits stating it had produced the entire file and that no electronic files related to the matter existed.
- Requester petitioned the Court of Common Pleas (Chapter 13) challenging completeness of the disclosure, the sufficiency of the affidavits, jurisdiction (because he claimed the records included “judicial” or court records), alleged bad faith, and asserted due process and victim-status arguments.
- The trial court affirmed the dismissals, crediting the DA Office’s affidavits; this Court affirmed, holding the affidavits sufficiently established that all responsive records were produced and that Requester’s speculative assertions did not show bad faith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction — whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction because records were "judicial/court records" | Schneller: Records included judicial/court records, triggering this Court’s jurisdiction over judicial agencies | DA: DA Office is a local agency; RTKL jurisdiction for local agencies lies with the common pleas court; "judicial records" is not a RTKL category | Held: Trial court had proper jurisdiction; "judicial records" is not a RTKL category and DA Office is a local (not judicial) agency |
| Mootness — whether appeals were mooted by production of records | Schneller: DA did not prove it produced all responsive records; affidavits insufficient (no detailed search description) | DA: Affidavits and produced documents show the entire responsive file was provided; no electronic records exist | Held: Affidavits adequately established that all responsive records were produced; appeals are moot absent evidence of bad faith |
| Bad faith — whether DA acted in bad faith to withhold records | Schneller: Speculates additional records exist, implying bad faith | DA: No evidence of bad faith; sworn affidavits refute existence of other records | Held: No competent evidence of bad faith; speculation insufficient |
| Due process — entitlement to hearing, discovery, or de novo review | Schneller: Trial court should have held a hearing or allowed discovery to test completeness | DA: Appeals procedures allowed presentation of evidence; appeals officers’ records are proper to rely upon | Held: No entitlement to a hearing under RTKL; trial court properly relied on the administrative record and affidavits |
Key Cases Cited
- Grine v. County of Centre, 138 A.3d 88 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (RTKL definitions and limits on "judicial agency" treatment)
- Faulk v. Philadelphia Clerk of Courts, 116 A.3d 1183 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (court records are not public records under RTKL; separate common-law access)
- Miller v. Centre County, 135 A.3d 233 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (district attorney’s office is not a "judicial agency" under the RTKL)
- Office of the Governor v. Scolforo, 65 A.3d 1095 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (agency affidavits describing searches are the means to prove nonexistence/production of records)
- Hodges v. Department of Health, 29 A.3d 1190 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (agency may satisfy burden with an attestation or affidavit of nonexistence)
- Moore v. Office of Open Records, 992 A.2d 907 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (affidavit constitutes competent evidence as to nonexistence of record)
- Office of the Governor v. Donahue, 98 A.3d 1223 (Pa. 2014) (agencies are presumed to act in good faith in RTKL compliance)
- Uniontown Newspapers, Inc. v. Department of Corrections, 151 A.3d 1196 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (averments in affidavits accepted absent evidence of bad faith)
- Lyft, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 145 A.3d 1235 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (mootness: a matter is moot when the court cannot enter an order with legal effect)