Office of the District Attorney of Philadelphia v. Bagwell
155 A.3d 1119
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- Requester Ryan Bagwell submitted two related RTKL requests (Sept. 29, 2014 "Request I" to City; Oct. 2, 2014 "Request II" to District Attorney) seeking emails, backup/retention policies, and correspondence about searching City email systems and transition from Lotus Notes to Exchange.
- The City and District Attorney denied various items, citing pending litigation/discovery orders, privilege (attorney-work product / attorney-client), lack of specificity, or nonexistence of records; Requester appealed to the Office of Open Records (OOR).
- OOR ordered disclosure in part for both requests (including in‑camera review for some Item No. 6 emails), redacting limited attorney-work-product portions of six emails and concluding Items 5–8 were sufficiently specific or that records did not exist for some items.
- Trial Court (Judge Carpenter) affirmed OOR’s determinations, and imposed a $500 civil penalty under RTKL §1305(a) against the District Attorney for bad‑faith denial of Items 1 and 2 of Request II.
- City and District Attorney appealed to the Commonwealth Court; appeals were consolidated. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Trial Court: (1) majority of Item No. 6 emails must be disclosed (six small redactions allowed), (2) Items 1,2,7,8 of Request II are sufficiently specific, and (3) $500 penalty was proper based on findings of bad faith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bagwell) | Defendant's Argument (City / D.A.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether emails re: searching City Lotus Notes/Exchange (Request I Item 6) are exempt attorney information re: pending/impending litigation | Emails are public records subject to RTKL; only limited redactions appropriate | Emails are attorney information and attorney-work-product or barred by prior judicial discovery order (mandamus/discovery denial) | Majority of emails are disclosable; OOR’s limited redactions to six emails affirmed — assertions of broad privilege and reliance on Schenck rejected |
| Whether prior judicial discovery order bars RTKL disclosure (use of RTKL to "circumvent" discovery) | Judicial discovery denials do not automatically bar RTKL access; RTKL exemptions must be shown | RTKL cannot be used to circumvent court discovery orders; prior order denying motion to compel forecloses disclosure | Judicial discovery rulings do not automatically exempt records from RTKL; only a protective order or court decree that forbids disclosure will bar RTKL access; here no such order existed |
| Whether District Attorney acted in bad faith justifying civil penalty under RTKL §1305(a) for denial of Request II Items 1–2 | Denial was wrongful and merits penalty | Denial was defensible; trial court failed to make necessary factual findings of bad faith | Trial court made sufficient findings (improper reliance on requester identity/intended use, failure to cite authority, inadequate search, misleading representations); $500 penalty affirmed |
| Whether Item Nos. 7 and 8 of Request II were sufficiently specific under RTKL §703 | Requests identify document types, subject matter and finite timeframes; sufficiently specific | Requests are overbroad and lack search terms / identified senders; impossible to search | OOR and Trial Court correctly applied the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette specificity test; Items 7 and 8 are sufficiently specific and must be produced |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 75 A.3d 453 (Pa. 2013) (establishes RTKL presumptions and burdens)
- Levy v. Senate of Pennsylvania, 65 A.3d 361 (Pa. 2013) (attorney-client/work-product privilege analyzed under RTKL; content controls)
- Schenck v. Township of Center, 893 A.2d 849 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (construction under prior Right to Know Act regarding solicitor information in litigation context)
- Office of Open Records v. Center Township, 95 A.3d 354 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (OOR jurisdiction to adjudicate privilege claims; in camera review)
- Pennsylvania Department of Education v. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 119 A.3d 1121 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (three-part test for sufficient specificity: subject, scope, timeframe)
- Mollick v. Township of Worcester, 32 A.3d 859 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (overbroad RTKL request lacking subject specificity)
- Montgomery County v. Iverson, 50 A.3d 281 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (keyword search request insufficiently specific in context)
- City of Allentown v. Brenan, 52 A.3d 451 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (judicial discovery denial does not automatically exempt records from RTKL absent an order prohibiting disclosure)