Meguerian v. Office of Attorney General
2013 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 547
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Attorney Garen Meguerian requested all emails (native format) between Jessie Smith and listed individuals from Jan 1, 2011 to Jan 30, 2013; AG asked for subject matter clarification and understood the request to be limited to "Dog Law."
- AG searched and located some emails but concluded they related to Smith's prior role in the Department of Agriculture (Dog Law) and not to her post-2011 work as an Assistant Attorney General in the Health Care Section.
- AG denied access because the emails did not qualify as "records" of the AG under the RTKL (they documented activity of another agency and were personal in nature).
- Meguerian appealed administratively and then to this Court; the petition was filed nominally on behalf of Jenny Stephens, though Meguerian was the original requester and did not expressly state he acted for Stephens.
- The Court treated Meguerian as the proper petitioner for standing purposes but addressed whether the emails were "records" of the AG and denied fees for bad faith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to appeal | Stephens (via Meguerian) is an interested party and may appeal | Meguerian was the requester; Stephens was not identified as real party in interest, so she lacks standing | Court: Meguerian (requester) has standing; Stephens lacks demonstrated direct interest, but Court proceeds on merits and amends caption to Meguerian as petitioner |
| Whether emails are "records" of the AG under RTKL | All emails sent/received by a current AG employee using AG accounts are agency records regardless of content | Emails must document a transaction or activity of the responding agency; these emails related to Dog Law (another agency) and personal matters | Held: Emails unrelated to Smith's AG duties are not "records" of the AG and are not subject to RTKL disclosure |
| Effect of subject-matter limitation / waiver | Petitioner denied limiting request to Dog Law and argued AG mischaracterized scope | AG relied on the clarification supplied during processing; petition later acknowledged Dog Law limitation | Held: Court limits review to Dog Law-related emails because petition characterized the request that way; Petitioner waived other arguments |
| Attorney fees / bad faith | AG acted unreasonably; request for fees and costs | AG acted reasonably in interpreting RTKL; no bad faith | Held: No bad faith; request for attorney fees and costs denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Bagwell v. Dep’t of Educ., 76 A.3d 81 (Pa. Cmwlth.2013) (records must be of the responding agency)
- Easton Area Sch. Dist. v. Baxter, 35 A.3d 1259 (Pa. Cmwlth.2012) (emails not agency records solely because of agency email address or location)
- Mollick v. Twp. of Worcester, 32 A.3d 859 (Pa. Cmwlth.2011) (content governs whether emails document agency activity)
- Office of the Governor v. Bari/Indep. Visitor Ctr. v. Bari, 20 A.3d 634 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (third parties with direct interest may participate on appeal)
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 75 A.3d 453 (Pa. 2013) (plenary review of RTKL legal questions)
- Travaglia v. Dep’t of Corr., 699 A.2d 1317 (Pa.Cmwlth.1997) (attorneys may submit RTK requests on behalf of clients)