Office of the Governor v. Scolforo
65 A.3d 1095
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Governor’s Office petitions for review of OOR’s Final Determination granting access to the Governor’s Calendars (Jan 18–Feb 4, 2011) in RTKL request by Mark Scolforo.
- Governor’s Office redacted calendar entries citing Section 708(b)(10) predecisional deliberative exception and executive/deliberative privilege, plus personal security and other exemptions.
- OOR denied access to emails and allowed Calendars with redactions; calendar entries withheld 28 items, but not the names of attendees, dates, times, or places.
- Affidavits from Open Records Officer Downing and State Police corroborated redactions; OOR declined to hold a hearing.
- OOR’s Final Determination held calendar entries were not facially deliberative and ordered disclosure without redaction, and found executive privilege did not apply.
- Court reviews whether calendar subject matter can be protected under 708(b)(10) and whether affidavits supported nondisclosure; court ultimately affirms the OOR’s denial of redactions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether calendar subject matter can reflect predecisional deliberations under 708(b)(10). | Scolforo argues topics reflect deliberations are exempt. | Governor’s Office argues not merely the topic but the deliberative content is protected. | Yes, subject matter can be deliberative; not automatically non-deliberative. |
| Whether the OOR erred by not considering the Downing affidavit. | Governor’s Office contends affidavit supports exemptions. | Requestor contends legal issue; affidavit irrelevant to threshold question. | OOR erred by not considering the affidavit; content-specific inquiry required. |
| Whether the affidavit is sufficient to prove the redactions are exempt under 708(b)(10). | Affidavit shows internal deliberations on subjects; sufficient. | Affidavit is conclusory and lacks detail to prove reflection of deliberations. | Affidavit is insufficient alone; more detailed showing required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 990 A.2d 813 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (RTKL remedial scheme; indexing and disclosure testing guidance)
- Kaplin v. Lower Merion Township, 19 A.3d 1209 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (deliberative content and predecisional protection; agency communications)
- Vartan, Commonwealth ex rel. Unified Judicial System v., 557 Pa. 390, 733 A.2d 1258 (1999) (deliberative process privilege criteria require deliberative character and predecisional timing)
- Manchester v. DEA, 823 F. Supp. 1259 (E.D. Pa. 1993) (affidavits must be detailed, non-conclusory to justify exemptions)