Saunders v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
No. 1838 C.D. 2011
July 5, 2012
The Commonwealth Court ruled that in denying a request for records, an agency can simply cite exemptions to disclosure of the Right to Know Law (RTKL) without explaining how they apply to the request. Because the requester in this case did not state why the requested records were public records and did not address the various asserted exemptions, he could not meet his burden to gain access to the requested records.
Background
Craig Saunders made a RTKL request to the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. The department granted part of the request and denied the rest. In its denial, the department cited five RTKL exemptions, quoting the relevant portion of the statute for each, but offering no further explanation.
Saunders appealed.
The Office of Open Records (“OOR”) dismissed Saunders’ appeal because Saunders failed to state a ground upon which the denied records were public.
Saunders appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
Commonwealth Court decision
The RTKL places the burden on the agency or department to show that a record is not subject to disclosure. The RTKL also requires that a petitioner’s appeal of a denial of access include an explanation for why the desired records are public and address any grounds provided by the agency for denying the request.
The Commonwealth Court first held that an agency fulfills its obligations for explaining the basis for a denial under the RTKL by merely “parroting” the language in a statutory exemption. The court stated that the department’s citation of the five statutory sections was sufficient to give Saunders notice of the grounds for denial.
Saunders failed to address the grounds for denial as required by the RTKL.
As such, the court affirmed the OOR’s final determination.
Finally, Saunders argued that because the requested records were public, he should have access to them with the exempted information redacted. The court disagreed, stating that because the records fell within the five exemptions, they were not public and that they did not need to be produced in redacted form.