McCord v. Pennsylvanians for Union Reform
100 A.3d 755
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- PFUR and its president Campbell filed preliminary objections (demurrer) to McCord’s Amended Complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The Amended Complaint seeks to resolve whether the RTKL applies to PFUR’s demand for the List and whether redactions are mandated.
- PFUR threatened mandamus to enforce producing an unre-dacted List under the Administrative Code; Treasury says RTKL and PennWATCH exemptions apply.
- The Amended Complaint alleges the List contains information exempt from disclosure and that RTKL and PennWATCH interact with Section 614.
- The court treated PFUR’s objections as to PFUR and Campbell separately and heard argument on September 11, 2014.
- The court ultimately overruled PFUR’s objection to PFUR but sustained the objection as to Campbell, and issued an order directing PFUR to answer and sustaining the Campbell objection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Amended Complaint states a declaratory judgment claim against PFUR. | PFUR’s demand implicates RTKL exemptions and PennWATCH. | RTKL and PennWATCH govern disclosure; Administrative Code not overridden. | Yes for PFUR; declaratory claim viable. |
| Whether the Amended Complaint states an injunctive relief claim against PFUR. | injunction needed to prevent PFUR from blocking RTKL responses. | Potential harm to safety could justify injunction. | Yes as to PFUR; injunction potentially warranted. |
| Whether Campbell can be held liable in his capacity as PFUR president. | Amended Complaint implicates PFUR’s actions; Campbell’s role not separately pleaded. | Joinder not required; Campbell has no individual liability alleged. | No; Campbell not subject to relief in this action. |
| Whether the List is subject to RTKL vs. Administrative Code/Special statutes. | RTKL governs access but PennWATCH exemptions apply; conflict with Administrative Code. | Public nature established by 614, RTKL exemptions control access. | Mixed; RTKL may apply to access while 614 establishes public nature; not dispositive. |
| Whether this is a justiciable, imminent controversy suitable for declaratory relief." | OOR and concurrent determinations indicate ongoing dispute; controversy ripe. | Administrative Code and RTKL interpretations create ambiguity but not hypothetical. | Yes; there is an actual controversy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Governor’s Office of Administration v. Purcell, 35 A.3d 811 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2011) (RTKL personal data exemptions and birthdates)
- Indep. Blue Cross v. Pa. Ins. Dep’t, 802 A.2d 715 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2002) (appropriate declaratory relief in dispute resolution)
- Maz in v. Bureau of Prof'l and Occupational Affairs, 950 A.2d 382 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2008) (declaratory judgments in justiciable disputes)
- Heltzel v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 90 A.3d 823 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2014) (distinction between RTKL access and public nature of records)
- Smith v. Pa. Emps. Benefit Trust Fund, 894 A.2d 874 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2006) (demurrer standard and consideration limited to pleadings)
- Lombardi, Inc. v. Smithfield, 11 A.3d 1180 (Del. 1989) (not included in list; example of ancillary authority)