Philadelphia District Attorney's Office v. Stover
176 A.3d 1024
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- Gregory Stover, an incarcerated individual, requested from the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office (DA) three court documents: Order of Conviction (1987), Order of Sentence (1988), and the DC-300B Court Commitment Form (1988) under the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL).
- The DA denied the request, asserting the documents are nonfinancial records of a judicial agency and therefore not subject to disclosure under the RTKL.
- Stover appealed to the Office of Open Records (OOR); the OOR accepted jurisdiction, ordered production, and reasoned the DA had not met its burden to show an exemption.
- The DA appealed to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County; that court affirmed the OOR without addressing whether the records were judicial records.
- On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, the panel held the OOR had jurisdiction to hear the DA’s initial determination but concluded the requested documents are records "of" a judicial agency and thus exempt from disclosure under the RTKL.
- The Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court’s order directing disclosure, noting alternative procedures exist for defendants to obtain court orders outside the RTKL.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OOR had jurisdiction to hear Stover’s appeal | Stover appealed DA denial to OOR; OOR should decide appeals from local agencies | DA argued records were judicial agency records and OOR thus lacked jurisdiction | OOR had jurisdiction because DA is a local agency and RTKL gives OOR authority to review local-agency denials |
| Whether the requested documents are "records of a judicial agency" | Stover (and trial court/OOR) treated the records as public and within DA possession, so disclosable under RTKL | DA argued the documents originate from the court and are judicial records regardless of DA possession | Court held the conviction order, sentencing order, and commitment form are judicial-agency records and exempt under RTKL |
| Whether DA’s possession or control makes judicial records disclosable under RTKL | Stover contended possession/control by DA made them subject to RTKL | DA argued possession does not change character: records remain judicial | Court held possession by a local agency does not convert judicial records into local-agency records |
| Whether other avenues exist to obtain the records despite RTKL exemption | Stover relied on RTKL to obtain records | DA noted RTKL bars disclosure but other post-conviction/court rules and remedies exist | Court noted RTKL is not sole mechanism; criminal rules and mandamus/equitable relief may provide access |
Key Cases Cited
- Grine v. County of Centre, 138 A.3d 88 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (defines when a record is "of" an agency; character/subject-matter controls)
- Faulk v. Philadelphia Clerk of Courts, 116 A.3d 1183 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (only financial records of judicial agencies are accessible under RTKL)
- Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County v. Office of Open Records, 2 A.3d 810 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (discusses limits on RTKL access to judicial records)
- Miller v. County of Centre, 135 A.3d 233 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (district attorney’s office is a local agency for RTKL purposes)
- Commonwealth v. Center Township, 95 A.3d 354 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (OOR may hear appeals involving local agencies holding records that implicate judicial functions)
- Pettit v. Namie, 931 A.2d 790 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (district attorney analyzed as part of county/local agency for related legal contexts)