T. Holz v. DOS
T. Holz v. DOS - 1656 and 1692 C.D. 2016
Pa. Commw. Ct.Jul 24, 2017Background
- Tim Holz submitted two RTKL requests to the Pennsylvania Department of State seeking printed annotated statutory texts (Title 18 Crimes Code, 2016 Annotated; Title 42 Consolidated Statutes text).
- The Department denied both requests, explaining RTKL does not require agencies to perform legal research and instructing Holz to supply act numbers/years to obtain the requested legislation.
- Holz appealed to the Office of Open Records (OOR) by correspondence but did not include copies of his original written RTKL requests with his appeals.
- OOR issued Notices of Filing Deficiency requiring the original requests within seven days and warned that failure to provide them would result in dismissal. Holz submitted responses but still did not attach the original requests.
- OOR dismissed both appeals as insufficient because the record on appeal was incomplete (missing the original requests), and thus OOR could not decide the merits or create a complete certified record for judicial review.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed OOR’s dismissals and denied Holz’s related motions (including motions to convene a grand jury).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Holz) | Defendant's Argument (Dept. of State / OOR) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the record certified by OOR was complete | Holz contended OOR’s certified record was incomplete and inaccurate | OOR maintained the record was incomplete because Holz failed to file the original requests as required | Affirmed: record incomplete; dismissal appropriate |
| Whether OOR’s dismissal amounted to perjury or bad faith | Holz alleged OOR/agency committed perjury and acted in bad faith, depriving him of access | OOR/Dept. argued dismissal was procedural for failure to satisfy filing requirements, not bad faith | Rejected: no merits finding of bad faith or perjury; procedural dismissal stands |
| Whether appeals met RTKL’s minimal sufficiency requirements | Holz argued his appeals were sufficiently specific and did not require legal research | Dept. argued appeals failed to address its denial grounds and did not include original requests as required by statute | Held: appeals insufficient under 65 P.S. §67.1101(a)(1) and precedent; dismissal proper |
| Whether the Court should reach merits of records’ public nature | Holz sought merits review and relief (fees, sanctions) | OOR/Dept. argued court need not reach merits because procedural defects barred consideration | Held: Court did not reach merits; only procedural sufficiency addressed |
Key Cases Cited
- Padgett v. Pennsylvania State Police, 73 A.3d 644 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (appeal must state grounds and address agency’s denial rationale)
- Saunders v. Department of Corrections, 48 A.3d 540 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (dismissing appeals that fail to meet minimal sufficiency under RTKL)
- Department of Corrections v. Office of Open Records, 18 A.3d 429 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (explaining requirement that appeals address agency’s stated grounds for denial)
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 75 A.3d 453 (Pa. 2013) (standard of review in RTKL appeals to Commonwealth Court is de novo)