142 A.3d 1023
Pa. Commw. Ct.2016Background
- Requesters (agents for a faculty association) submitted RTKL requests to 14 State System universities and the Chancellor seeking: (1) correspondence (with attachments) about specified budget/financial reports from 2010 onward (Item 1); (2) transitional/training documents for new hires in finance/admin (Item 2); and (3) written instructions/feedback on completion of those reports for current and past employees (Item 3).
- State System invoked extensions, sought search terms, and collected large electronic data sets (many gigabytes); Requesters did not provide search terms and refused mediation.
- Agencies ultimately failed to respond within statutory timeframes; OOR appeals followed. Agencies argued requests were insufficiently specific and unduly burdensome given the volume of records.
- OOR issued final determinations finding all three items sufficiently specific and ordered disclosure; agencies petitioned for reconsideration (denied) and appealed to this Court.
- The Court applied the three-part specificity test from Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (subject matter, scope, timeframe) and reviewed whether the agencies had a sufficient opportunity and evidentiary basis to assert RTKL exemptions given the large volume of records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State System) | Defendant's Argument (Requesters) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Item 1 (correspondence re: budget/financial reports over multiple years) is sufficiently specific | Item 1 is overly broad: multi-year scope and requires review of huge volume of documents | Item 1 identifies specific officials, document types, attachments and a defined timeframe — sufficiently specific | Held: Item 1 is sufficiently specific under Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (subject, scope, timeframe) |
| Whether Item 2 (training/transitional documents for new hires) is overly broad for lacking explicit timeframe | Without a timeframe it could span decades (since 1983); OOR improperly narrowed request | Context limits request to training materials used for new hires at time of request; sufficiently narrow | Held: Item 2 is sufficiently specific when read in context (limited to materials used for new hires at request time) |
| Whether Item 3 (instructions/feedback for current and past employees re: reports) is overly broad | Seeks records for "current and past employees" with no finite timeframe and is therefore vague | Item 3 narrows by topic (instructions/feedback) and five-year report timeframe; identifies document type and recipients | Held: Item 3 is sufficiently specific (discrete group by type and recipient) |
| Whether the agencies were excused from proving exemptions because they lacked time/resources to review voluminous records | Agencies cannot reasonably determine exemptions without more time given data volume; OOR erred by ordering production without allowing full review | Requesters say volume does not excuse compliance; agencies must still show exemptions and can seek more time with adequate evidence | Held: Volume alone does not excuse agencies. Agencies must provide detailed estimates (number of documents, review time required, technical delivery issues) so OOR may grant additional time; OOR remanded to allow proper factfinding on exemptions/time needed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pa. State Police v. Office of Open Records, 995 A.2d 515 (discusses requester/agency obligations under RTKL)
- Pittsburgh Post-Gazette v. Office of Open Records, 119 A.3d 1121 (articulates three-part specificity test: subject, scope, timeframe)
- Montgomery Cnty. v. Iverson, 50 A.3d 281 (caution against open-ended, guidance-free requests)
- Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. v. Legere, 50 A.3d 260 (burdensomeness alone does not make a request overbroad)
- Department of Corrections v. St. Hilaire, 128 A.3d 859 (requests for defined categories over time can be sufficiently specific)
- Levy v. Senate of Pennsylvania, 65 A.3d 361 (agencies cannot forfeit exemption claims merely by procedural omission)
- Signature Info. Sols., LLC v. Aston Twp., 995 A.2d 510 (prior rule on waiver of exemption arguments, discussed and effectively limited by Levy)
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 75 A.3d 453 (standard of review for this Court)