Saunders v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
48 A.3d 540
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- Saunders, pro se, petitions for review of an OOR final determination denying RTKL access to items 2 and 3 from the Department of Corrections.
- Department granted item 1 but denied 2 and 3 citing exemptions under RTKL § 708(b)(1)(h), (2), (16), (17), and (10)(i)(A).
- OOR dismissed Saunders’ appeal for failure to state grounds showing the records are public records under § 1101(a)(1).
- Saunders argues the denial lacks factual rebuttal and the Department failed to comply with RTKL § 706 redaction rules where applicable.
- The court measures whether records are public unless exempt, and whether agencies prove exemptions apply, and whether redaction is required when records are public.
- Court affirms the OOR, holding the Department’s citations provided notice of exemptions and Saunders failed to articulate why records are public records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the denial properly state grounds for exemption? | Saunders argues the Department merely parrots exemptions without explaining why public records are exempt. | Department provided statutory grounds for denial under multiple RTKL exemptions. | Yes; notice of exemptions satisfied §1101, and Saunders failed to state why records were public. |
| Can redaction be required for records not yet determined to be public records? | Saunders contends records should be redactable even if not public. | Redaction only applies after a record is deemed public under §706. | Redaction applies only to records deemed public. |
| Does the burden of proof lie with the agency to show exemptions apply? | Department failed to rebut the presumption that records are public. | Agency bears burden to prove exemptions under RTKL §708. | Yes; the Department bears burden to prove exemptions apply. |
| Were Saunders’ arguments about specific exemptions adequately preserved or waived? | Saunders argues lack of record descriptions prevented precise objections. | Argument waived for not raising below; standards require proper preservation. | Waived; argument not raised in OOR appeal. |
| Was the agency’s reliance on §708(b)(2) sufficient to deny records without challenge? | Department’s refusal under law enforcement exemption not properly challenged. | The Department provided a reason under §708(b)(2) for non-disclosure. | Saunders failed to timely challenge the exemption once asserted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of Corr. v. Office of Open Records, 18 A.3d 429 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (appeal grounds; state grounds for denial)
- Department of Health v. Office of Open Records, 4 A.3d 803 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (public records not exempt when not under 708)
- Fort Cherry Sch. Dist. v. Coppola, 37 A.3d 1259 (Pa.Cmwlth.2012) (waiver for issues not raised below)
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 990 A.2d 813 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (independent review; substitute findings on review)