197 A.3d 825
Pa. Commw. Ct.2018Background
- Uniontown Newspapers (Requester) sued the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) in a Chapter 13 enforcement action after prevailing on administrative review of an RTKL request; the Court previously found DOC acted in bad faith.
- Requester sought $215,190.75 in attorneys' fees under RTKL §1304(a)(1) (bad faith) and submitted redacted/unredacted invoices and affidavits from two Saul Ewing attorneys; a publisher testified as to payment.
- DOC challenged fees tied to matters on which Requester did not prevail and objected to portions of the invoices.
- The Court held a hearing on reasonable attorney fees and considered statutory text, legislative intent, and precedent in construing §1304(a).
- The Court awarded a reduced, apportioned fee of $118,458.37, excluding costs, certain timekeepers, and entries for unsuccessful or unnecessary work (e.g., motion to publish, internal appeal-response work).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1304(a) requires reversal of an appeals officer's determination to award fees for bad faith | §1304(a) permits fees when a receiving agency acted in bad faith and denied access, even if the appeals officer's decision is not reversed | §1304(a) requires a court to reverse an appeals officer's final determination before awarding fees | Court construes §1304(a)(1) to allow fees when the receiving agency's denial is reversed and the agency acted in bad faith; reversal of an appeals officer is not a prerequisite |
| Burden/evidence required to prove "reasonable attorney fees" | Invoices, counsel affidavits, and publisher testimony suffice to establish fees and payment | DOC disputed specific fees tied to unsuccessful claims and argued lack of evidence for reasonableness of some entries | Court held Requester bore burden; accepted invoices/affidavits as to payment but reduced/apportioned fees where reasoning or success lacking; DOC waived rate challenges by not contesting them |
| Recoverability of litigation costs (non-fee costs) | Requester sought nearly $7,500 in costs (incl. travel) as recoverable | DOC contested recovery as unsupported | Court denied recovery of costs for lack of evidence as to their reasonableness |
| Apportionment for unsuccessful or unnecessary work | Requester sought full recovery of all billed time | DOC argued fees for unsuccessful claims, motions, and appeal work should be excluded | Court apportioned fees based on degree of success, excluded time for unsuccessful motions (e.g., judgment on pleadings), motion to publish, Supreme Court appeal response, unsupported timekeeper entries, and other unnecessary work |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep't of Educ. v. Bagwell, 131 A.3d 638 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (interpreting §1304 standards for fees and bad faith)
- Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 75 A.3d 453 (Pa. 2013) (Chapter 13 court's role and fee/penalty phase standard)
- Pa. State Police v. Grove, 161 A.3d 877 (Pa. 2017) (RTKL construed to expand access; liberal construction)
- Parsons v. Pa. Higher Educ. Assist. Agency, 910 A.2d 177 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (construing predecessor RTKA fee provision)
- Twp. of S. Whitehall v. Karoly, 891 A.2d 780 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (factors for reasonableness of attorney fees)
- In re Trust Estate of LaRocca, 246 A.2d 337 (Pa. 1968) (benchmarks for assessing attorney-fee reasonableness)