185 A.3d 1161
Pa. Commw. Ct.2018Background
- In Sept. 2014 The Herald Standard (Requester) sought inmate diagnosis counts by illness and comparisons across State Correctional Institutions, with a particular interest in cancer and respiratory conditions. DOC assumed the request related to an ongoing "No Escape" investigation of alleged coal-waste exposure at SCI‑Fayette.
- DOC denied the request citing investigative exemptions; OOR found the records non-investigative and ordered disclosure of "all responsive records." DOC made piecemeal disclosures in Dec. 2014 and Jan. 2015 but did not produce all responsive data sources (Mortality Lists, Oncology Database, Pharmacy Contractor reports, and Chronic Care Clinic/PTrax records).
- Requester filed a petition to enforce OOR's disclosure order and sought sanctions for bad faith. The court conducted fact-finding (depositions, hearing) to determine DOC's search and disclosure practices.
- The court found DOC's open‑records officer forwarded the request without conducting or directing a records search, relied on Health Care Bureau representations, and failed to obtain or review potentially responsive records (including third‑party pharmacy reports) before denying the request or litigating its exemption.
- The court concluded DOC failed to preserve or produce all responsive records (noting PTrax is a live database and some historical snapshots were unrecoverable), repeatedly delayed disclosure over several years, and ultimately ordered full disclosure and sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOC performed a good‑faith search under the RTKL upon receipt of the request | DOC failed to search custodians, third‑party contractor, and review records; this shows bad faith | DOC argues it reasonably treated the request as part of the No Escape investigation and relied on custodial representations | Court: DOC did not make a good‑faith search or preserve records; failure to search before denial evidences bad faith |
| Whether records were properly withheld as part of a noncriminal investigation | Requester: records (Mortality Lists, Oncology DB, PTrax, pharmacy data) were non‑investigative and public | DOC: records related to ongoing No Escape investigation and thus exempt under RTKL investigatory exemption | Court: OOR correct — records were not investigative; many pre‑existing data sources are public and required disclosure |
| Whether DOC complied with OOR’s disclosure order and timely produced "all responsive records" | Requester: DOC’s piecemeal disclosures were incomplete and delayed; noncompliance continued after court decisions | DOC: disclosed some records and later produced others in discovery; claimed some data format/availability issues (PTrax live DB, pharmacy formatting) | Court: DOC failed to disclose all responsive records within required time, delayed and incomplete disclosures; must produce remaining sources and verify completeness |
| Whether statutory civil penalties are appropriate and amount | Requester: seek penalties for bad faith withholding | DOC: implicit denial that bad faith warranting penalty | Court: Bad faith found; maximum RTKL civil penalty of $1,500 awarded to Requester to deter future violations |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 990 A.2d 813 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (RTKL is remedial and courts may assess bad‑faith denials)
- Office of Dist. Att'y of Phila. v. Bagwell, 155 A.3d 1119 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (upholding civil penalty for agency bad faith under RTKL)
- Chambersburg Area Sch. Dist. v. Dorsey, 97 A.3d 1281 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (agency failure to review records can support a bad‑faith finding)
- Pa. State Police v. McGill, 83 A.3d 476 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (agency may not claim ignorance of existing records absent a detailed search)
- Dep't of Labor & Indus. v. Earley, 126 A.3d 355 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (agency must make a reasonable, good‑faith search to establish nonexistence of responsive records)
- Parsons v. Pa. Higher Educ. Assist. Agency, 910 A.2d 177 (Pa. Cmwlth. en banc) (failure to review records until litigation evidences willful violation)
- Barkeyville Borough v. Stearns, 35 A.3d 91 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (requester bears burden to prove bad faith; after‑discovered records can be evidence of bad faith)