244 A.3d 515
Pa. Commw. Ct.2020Background
- Requester Eric Friedman attended a PUC public meeting and sought the PUC’s "blast radius"/"buffer zone" calculations for Energy Transfer’s Mariner HVL pipelines that run through his neighborhood.
- On Feb. 4, 2019 Friedman submitted a Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) request to the PUC for records relating to blast-radius calculations for the Mariner pipelines.
- The PUC denied the request in full, asserting the records were designated Confidential Security Information (CSI) under the CSI Act and were part of a noncriminal investigation exempt from disclosure.
- Friedman appealed to the Office of Open Records (OOR); OOR concluded the records were not CSI but that portions were exempt under RTKL infrastructure-security and noncriminal-investigation exemptions and ordered release of the Bureau of I&E investigative report with blast-radius calculations excluded.
- The PUC and Energy Transfer petitioned for review in Commonwealth Court, arguing OOR lacked authority to decide CSI status and that CSI-designation challenges must be made under Section 3(c) of the CSI Act to the agency that received the records.
- The Commonwealth Court reversed OOR, holding OOR acted outside its authority in ruling the records were not CSI and directing that challenges to CSI designations be pursued under the CSI Act procedures (PUC/agency review, then court in camera review if appealed).
Issues
| Issue | Petitioners' Argument | Requester's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OOR may determine whether records are CSI under the CSI Act | OOR lacks authority; CSI determinations and challenges must be handled under CSI Act by the agency that received the records (PUC) | OOR may decide whether records qualify as CSI when enforcing RTKL; CSI Act does not conflict with RTKL | OOR lacked authority to rule on CSI status; challenge must be made under Section 3(c) to the PUC (OOR decision reversed) |
| Whether the requested records qualify as CSI | Records were properly designated CSI by PUC/ Energy Transfer | Records are not CSI and thus are subject to RTKL disclosure | Court did not reach the substantive correctness of the CSI designation; reversed OOR’s contrary determination and deferred to CSI Act process |
| Whether Section 335(d) of the Public Utility Code required disclosure despite CSI or RTKL exemptions | Even if 335(d) were implicated, redactions could be applied; PUC/CSI process controls disclosure | OOR relied on 335(d) to order disclosure | Court declined to address Section 335(d) because CSI Act process must be exhausted first (issue not reached) |
| Whether requester exhausted administrative remedies under CSI Act before OOR appeal | Remedy exhaustion required; OOR should have directed requester to pursue agency challenge under CSI Act | RTKL/OOR appeal was proper without separate CSI Act challenge | Court held requester did not exhaust CSI Act remedies; OOR should not have resolved CSI classification |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Pa. Dep’t of State, 123 A.3d 801 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (OOR may interpret statutes other than the RTKL when evaluating public nature of records)
- Dep’t of Labor & Indus. v. Heltzel, 90 A.3d 823 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (if RTKL conflicts with another statute on access, RTKL does not apply)
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 75 A.3d 453 (Pa. 2013) (appellate courts review OOR determinations de novo)