Montgomery County v. Paul Iverson
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
No. 1071 C.D. 2011
August 15, 2012
The Commonwealth Court held that a request for county emails was insufficiently specific because it did not provide a specific timeframe, identify individual senders or recipients, or specify county departments that might have the requested email.
The court explained that the request was overly broad even though it sought emails to and from five domains and identified key terms in the emails, as the terms were too broad and did not provide any context with which to limit the county’s search for responsive records.
Background
Paul Iverson submitted a request for records pursuant to the Right to Know Law (“RTKL”) to Montgomery County for all emails to and from five different email domains (for example, montcopa.org and septa.org).
The request only sought emails that contained any of the following terms: Newton, Fox Chase, Fox Chase-Newton, R8, HS-1, Pennypack, Trail, Greenway, Pa-tec, Bryn Athyn, Pitcairn, Parkhouse, Lorimer, or Bethayres.
The county denied the request, stating that it was not sufficiently specific.
Mr. Iverson appealed to the Office of Open Records (“OOR”). The OOR determined that the request was sufficiently specific because it allowed the county to know what records were requested. The OOR also concluded that the county’s difficulty in retrieving and producing the documents did not alter their status as public records.
The county appealed the OOR’s decision to the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, which reversed the OOR’s final determination because the county would have to purchase additional computer software to search the emails and spend significant time determining if the records were subject to other RTKL exemptions.
Mr. Iverson appealed that ruling.
Commonwealth Court decision
The Commonwealth Court affirmed the court of common pleas’ decision.
Section 703 of the RTKL states that a request “should identify or describe the records sought with sufficient specificity to enable the agency to ascertain which records are being requested.”
The court determined that the request was not sufficiently specific. It was not limited to a specific timeframe, did not specify email addresses or individuals, or even identify departments where the email might be found.
As the court explained, “there is no context within which the search may be narrowed.” The terms provided in the request, such as “trail,” were labeled by the court as “incredibly broad.”
The court noted that “some subject matter context may be necessary, as a practical matter, to narrow an otherwise overly broad request down to a request that sufficiently informs an agency of the records requested.”