Uniontown Newspaper v. PA Dept of Cor, Aplt, 243 A.3d 19

Background

In Sept. 2014 reporter Christine Haines (The Herald Standard / Uniontown Newspapers) requested non‑identifying data on illnesses at SCI‑Fayette and comparisons with other state prisons under the RTKL.
DOC assumed the request related to an ongoing “No Escape” investigation into alleged coal‑ash exposure, denied the request, and the OOR ordered disclosure.
DOC’s open‑records officer forwarded the request to the Health Care Bureau, did not independently search for or review potentially responsive records (including contractor records), and relied on bureau representations that responsive records were part of the investigation.
Over multiple years of litigation DOC belatedly produced various mortality lists, oncology data and other records; some chronic care records were lost because DOC failed to preserve them timely.
The Commonwealth Court found DOC acted in bad faith, imposed the maximum $1,500 statutory penalty, and later awarded the requesters $118,458.37 in attorney fees.
The Supreme Court granted review on two narrow questions: (1) whether an RTKL responder’s failure to personally and independently assess the universe of records can support bad‑faith sanctions; and (2) whether 65 P.S. § 67.1304 authorizes attorney fees when a court reverses an agency’s final determination (as opposed to only reversing an appeals officer).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether agency may be sanctioned for bad faith when the open‑records officer relied on bureau statements and did not personally obtain/review records	DOC’s request response was not a good faith search or review; open‑records officer’s failure to obtain and review records was an abdication of statutory duties and constitutes bad faith	Section 502 does not require the open‑records officer personally to search, obtain or review records; the agency (through knowledgeable staff) may satisfy duties; requiring personal review is administratively burdensome	Court affirmed: open‑records officer must act with diligence in directing and overseeing searches and may not simply rubber‑stamp bureau assertions; DOC’s failures supported a bad‑faith finding and sanctions
Whether § 67.1304(a) permits awarding attorney fees when a court reverses an agency’s final determination (not only an appeals officer’s)	§ 67.1304 is ambiguous and should be read to permit fees when an agency’s determination is reversed; reading it otherwise would frustrate RTKL’s transparency goals and yield absurd results	Text is plain: fees apply only when a court reverses the appeals officer’s determination or when there is a deemed denial; no basis to expand the provision	Court affirmed Commonwealth Court: the phrase “final determination” is ambiguous in context; § 1304(a)(1) authorizes fees when a court reverses the receiving agency’s determination and finds bad faith

Key Cases Cited

Uniontown Newspapers, Inc. v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 185 A.3d 1161 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (Commonwealth Court decision finding bad faith and describing DOC’s failures)
Uniontown Newspapers, Inc. v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 197 A.3d 825 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (Commonwealth Court decision awarding attorney fees)
Uniontown Newspapers, Inc. v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 151 A.3d 1196 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (earlier Commonwealth Court opinion on scope of responsive records)
Pa. State Police v. Grove, 161 A.3d 877 (Pa. 2017) (discussing RTKL’s remedial purpose and expansion of public access)
Parsons v. Pa. Higher Educ. Assistance Agency, 910 A.3d 177 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (interpreting predecessor fee‑shifting provision; used as precedent for fee analysis)
Chambersburg Area Sch. Dist. v. Dorsey, 97 A.3d 1281 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (holding bad faith can be found without showing fraud or corruption)
Com. v. Giulian, 141 A.3d 1262 (Pa. 2016) (statutory‑interpretation principles cited for contextual reading)