Pennsylvania Department of Education v. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
119 A.3d 1121
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015

Background

  • On August 5, 2014 the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette requested “all of the emails of Acting Secretary of Education Carolyn Dumaresq as they pertain to the performance of her duties” from Aug. 23, 2013 to Aug. 5, 2014 (≈347 days).
  • PDE asked for clarification and invoked a 30-day extension; the requester refused to narrow the request.
  • PDE denied the request as insufficiently specific under Section 703 of the RTKL; requester appealed to the Office of Open Records (OOR).
  • OOR found the request sufficiently specific, rejected PDE’s attempt to withhold claiming exemptions later or require prepayment, and ordered production of all responsive records.
  • PDE appealed to the Commonwealth Court, arguing the request was overbroad, the appeal was defective, OOR improperly denied PDE the chance to assert exemptions, and OOR erred on prepayment.
  • The Commonwealth Court reversed OOR, holding the request was insufficiently specific under Section 703 and therefore denied.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether the RTKL request was sufficiently specific under §703 Requester: the phrase “as they pertain to the performance of her duties as Acting Secretary” is a meaningful subject limitation. PDE: request is overbroad because it seeks all emails relating to all agency activity over ~1 year without a narrower subject matter. Court: Insufficiently specific—subject matter too broad; "performance of duties" is effectively all agency activity and is a fishing expedition.
Whether OOR could order production without allowing PDE to assert exemptions post-specificity ruling Requester: once specificity established, PDE must produce; exemptions already argued and rejected by OOR. PDE: if specificity lost, agency should get opportunity after specificity ruling to review records, redact, and assert exemptions; PDE also sought to bifurcate. Held: Court reversed OOR on specificity grounds and did not reach or adopt OOR’s refusal to allow post-ruling exemption assertions. PDE entitled to opportunity to assert exemptions after a specificity determination.
Whether PDE could require prepayment of fees Requester: PDE failed to include an initial estimate, so cannot demand prepayment. PDE: if production will exceed $100, it should be allowed to require prepayment after estimating. Held: Court did not decide prepayment issue because it reversed on specificity; OOR’s conclusion on prepayment was not upheld.
Whether an agency’s identification of potentially responsive records alone satisfies §703 Requester: PDE had already identified ~700 potentially responsive emails, showing specificity. PDE: identification of records does not automatically satisfy the statutory specificity requirement. Held: Court: identification alone is insufficient to meet §703; substantive request elements (subject, scope, timeframe) must be present.

Key Cases Cited

  • Levy v. Senate of Pa., 619 Pa. 586, 65 A.3d 361 (definition of RTKL objective and public access)
  • Pa. State Police v. Office of Open Records, 11 A.3d 515, 995 A.2d 515 (treatment of specificity and examples of sufficiently specific vs overbroad requests)
  • Montgomery Cnty. v. Iverson, 50 A.3d 281 (open‑ended requests with broad subject terms can be overbroad)
  • Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. v. Legere, 50 A.3d 260 (broad timeframes can be permissible when scope is a clearly defined universe of documents)
  • Carey v. Dep’t of Corr., 61 A.3d 367 (adopting three‑part test: subject matter, scope, timeframe)
  • Mollick v. Twp. of Worcester, 32 A.3d 859 (request for emails relating to any township business insufficiently specific)
  • Askew v. Office of the Governor, 65 A.3d 989 (requests requiring legal analysis to identify subject matter may lack specificity)
  • Pa. Hous. Fin. Agency v. Ali, 43 A.3d 532 (timeframe omission may not render a request overbroad when other elements are specific)
  • Easton Area Sch. Dist. v. Baxter, 35 A.3d 1259 (short timeframe can make an otherwise broad request sufficiently specific)
  • Meguerian v. Office of the Attorney Gen., 86 A.3d 924 (agency’s ability to discern records relevant but identification alone insufficient to resolve §703 question)
  • Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 621 Pa. 133, 75 A.3d 453 (standard of review on appeal from OOR is de novo)
Read the full case