152 A.3d 369
Pa. Commw. Ct.2016Background
- Requestor (an inmate) filed a RTKL request to the Pennsylvania Office of Inspector General (OIG) seeking: (1) OIG rules/regulations/policies governing its duties and functions, (2) an organizational diagram, and (3) investigation reports of staff discipline at two correctional institutions over the past ten years.
- OIG partially granted the request (provided an executive order and a redacted org chart) and denied other portions, asserting multiple RTKL exemptions for investigative, safety, and funding-related materials.
- Requestor appealed to the Office of Open Records (OOR), arguing Paragraph 1 sought only duties/functions (not investigative methods) and that names in the org chart were public; he also limited his Paragraph 3 request on appeal to identities and reasons for discipline (not investigative reports).
- OOR held Paragraph 1 sufficiently specific and determined OIG failed to prove exemptions; it dismissed the appeal as to Paragraph 3 because Requestor modified the request on appeal.
- OIG appealed to this Court, arguing Paragraph 1 lacked sufficient specificity, OOR improperly allowed Requestor to revise the request on appeal, and OOR should have remanded to allow OIG to review records and develop exemption evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (OIG) | Defendant's Argument (Brown) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Paragraph 1 of the RTKL request was sufficiently specific under Section 703 | The request seeks all rules/policies governing all OIG duties/functions without identifying a transaction or activity, creating an unreasonable burden | The request reasonably sought OIG duties/functions (not investigative methods) and was specific enough for OIG to locate responsive records | Reversed OOR: Paragraph 1 is not sufficiently specific; OOR erred in finding otherwise |
| Whether OOR erred by allowing Requestor to modify the request on appeal | OOR should not permit modification on appeal; review must be confined to the original request | Requestor argued he only sought identities/reasons for discipline, not investigative reports | Court declined to reach this argument after resolving specificity issue (no ruling) |
| Whether OOR should have remanded to allow OIG to review records and develop exemption evidence | A remand was necessary after finding the request specific so OIG could identify exemptions with actual evidence | OOR denied exemptions and ordered disclosure without remand | Court did not address remand argument because it reversed on specificity (no ruling) |
| Burden of proof for exemptions under RTKL | OIG asserted statutory exemptions (investigative, safety, funding) to withhold records | Requestor contended exemptions were not shown and some redactions were improper | Court reiterated agency bears burden to prove exemptions but did not reach merits because Paragraph 1 was non-specific |
Key Cases Cited
- SWB Yankees LLC v. Wintermantel, 45 A.3d 1029 (Pa. 2012) (stating RTKL objective to empower citizens with access to government information)
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 990 A.2d 813 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (RTKL exemptions must be narrowly construed)
- Department of Education v. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 119 A.3d 1121 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (three-part test for request specificity; broad requests without context are fishing expeditions)
- Department of Environmental Protection v. Legere, 50 A.3d 260 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (burdensomeness does not alone render a request overbroad)
- Easton Area School District v. Baxter, 35 A.3d 1259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (emails for defined addresses and time period can be sufficiently specific)
- Pennsylvania State Police v. Office of Open Records, 995 A.2d 515 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (distinguishing sufficiently specific requests for manuals from overbroad requests for all records pertaining to seizures)