PG Publishing Co. v. Governor's Office of Administration
120 A.3d 456
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015Background
- PG Publishing (The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) filed an amended petition for review seeking mandamus relief challenging GOA/PDE e-mail retention policies that allow employees to classify and delete e-mails as transitory/non-records, leading to permanent deletion from servers after five days.
- PG Publishing alleged that this discretionary classification undermines RTKL access and could permanently destroy records responsive to RTKL requests (citing a PDE request for Tomalis’s emails where few messages were produced and suggestions that other emails had been deleted).
- PG Publishing sought injunctions to (1) stop GOA from destroying e-mails after five days and require two-year central retention, and (2) bar PDE employees from daily purging and compel searches of GOA archives for RTKL requests.
- GOA and PDE filed preliminary objections arguing lack of standing/capacity, that the RTKL does not impose retention duties, failure to plead any specific violation of GOA retention directives/Administrative Code, absence of clear right to mandamus relief, and sovereign immunity.
- The court found PG Publishing has standing (as a requester and under press-standing principles from Press-Enterprise/Benton), but dismissed the RTKL claim because RTKL does not alter existing record-retention law and Section 507 preserves agency retention/disposition schedules.
- The court also dismissed the Administrative Code claim, finding the GOA manuals set standards and provide only limited, reasonable employee discretion; PG Publishing failed to plead a concrete violation or a clear legal right necessary for mandamus. The amended petition was dismissed with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to sue under RTKL/mandamus | Press has unique public-interest standing; PG Publishing is a requester entitled to sue | GOA/PDE argued PG Publishing asserted a generalized public grievance lacking individualized injury | Court: PG Publishing has standing as a requester and under press-standing (Benton/Press-Enterprise) |
| Whether RTKL requires agencies to retain records | RTKL's disclosure purpose means retention policies enabling deletion thwart access; RTKL requester remedy includes forcing retention | RTKL §507 preserves existing retention/disposition schedules; RTKL governs disclosure of existing records, not a duty to retain | Court: RTKL does not create a retention duty; RTKL claim dismissed |
| Whether GOA/PDE violated Administrative Code / GOA retention directives | Agency practice (Tomalis emails) shows failure to follow GOA retention policy or excessive employee discretion causing loss of records | GOA manuals and directives provide definitions, standards, training, and limited necessary discretion; PG Publishing pleaded no concrete adherence failure | Court: PG Publishing failed to allege a cognizable violation of Section 701; Administrative Code claim dismissed |
| Availability of mandamus relief | Mandamus appropriate to compel performance where petitioner has clear right and no other remedy; PG Publishing seeks to enforce retention duties | GOA/PDE: no established legal right to retained records under RTKL or Administrative Code; no basis for mandamus | Court: No clear legal right shown; mandamus not available; petition dismissed with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- William Penn Parking Garage, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 346 A.2d 269 (Pa. 1975) (standing requires being "aggrieved" with substantial, direct, immediate interest)
- Fumo v. City of Philadelphia, 972 A.2d 487 (Pa. 2009) (definition of aggrieved and standing elements)
- Press-Enterprise, Inc. v. Benton Area School Dist., 604 A.2d 1221 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (press has standing to vindicate public’s access to government information)
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 990 A.2d 813 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (RTKL purpose: promote access and government accountability)
- SWB Yankees, LLC v. Wintermantel, 45 A.3d 1029 (Pa. 2012) (RTKL empowers citizens’ access to government information)
- Brown v. Levy, 73 A.3d 514 (Pa. 2013) (writ of mandamus standards: clear right, corresponding duty, and lack of other remedy)
- Clark v. Beard, 918 A.2d 155 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (mandamus enforces established legal rights rather than create them)