PASSHE, Office of the Chancellor v. Association of State College and University Faculties ("APSCUF")
2126-2138 and 2654 C.D. 2015
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jul 6, 2016Background
- Requesters (agents for APSCUF) submitted RTKL requests to 12 state universities and the Chancellor in May 2015 (and later to two more universities) seeking: (1) correspondence (with attachments) regarding specified budget and financial reports from January 2010 onward for identified officials; (2) transitional/training documents for new hires in Finance and Administration; and (3) written instructions/feedback to current and past employees about completion of those reports.
- The State System invoked statutory 30‑day extensions, then sought additional time citing very large data volumes and IT constraints; Requesters declined to supply search terms and did not agree to further extensions, so the requests were deemed denied.
- The State System argued before the OOR that the requests were insufficiently specific under RTKL §703 and that it lacked time/resources to review the voluminous records for applicable §708 exemptions.
- The OOR issued final determinations finding all items sufficiently specific, declined to find applicable exemptions, and ordered production; petitions for reconsideration were denied.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed that the requests were sufficiently specific under the three‑part Pittsburgh Post‑Gazette test (subject matter, scope, timeframe), but vacated and remanded for the OOR to allow the State System a fair opportunity to demonstrate—by quantifying records and demonstrating review burden and technical issues—that additional time was warranted to identify applicable exemptions under §708.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the RTKL requests were sufficiently specific under §703 (Items 1–3) | Requests identify subject matter, recipients, and report types; therefore specific | Requests are overbroad and burdensome (large timespan, numerous records) | Requests are sufficiently specific: Item 1 (correspondence about reports from identified officials) and Items 2–3 (training and instructions limited by context) satisfied the three‑part test |
| Whether the OOR may narrow a request or limit timeframe | N/A (Requesters opposed narrowing) | OOR improperly narrowed Item 2 by limiting timeframe | Court: OOR may not refashion requests, but may determine context reasonably limits timeframe; here limiting Item 2 to documents used for new hires at time of request was acceptable |
| Whether the State System’s inability to review voluminous records excuses failure to assert §708 exemptions | Agency lacked time/technical capacity to review all records and thus could not identify exemptions | Large volume alone does not excuse the agency’s duty to review and assert exemptions | Large requests do not automatically excuse review; but agency must quantify records, explain review time and technical burdens to obtain additional time. Remand for OOR to consider such evidence and, if justified, grant time to assess §708 exemptions |
Key Cases Cited
- Pennsylvania State Police v. Office of Open Records, 995 A.2d 515 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (request must identify records with sufficient specificity; OOR cannot refashion requests)
- Pittsburgh Post‑Gazette v. Pa. Dep’t of Educ., 119 A.3d 1121 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (three‑part specificity test: subject matter, scope, timeframe)
- Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. v. Legere, 50 A.3d 260 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (burdensomeness alone does not render a request overbroad)
- Carey v. Dep’t of Corrections, 61 A.3d 367 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (scope prong: identify discrete group by type or recipient)
- Department of Corrections v. St. Hilaire, 128 A.3d 859 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (requests confined to identifiable subject/timeframe can be sufficiently specific)
- Levy v. Senate of Pennsylvania, 65 A.3d 361 (Pa.) (agency cannot be deemed to have waived exemption defenses merely for not listing them in initial denial; legislature intended protection for certain records)